The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

January 30, 2026

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 69)

The Hague, 30 January 2026 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

Off to the Races …

EDITORIAL | Off to the Races …

By Abraham A. van Kempen
30 January 2026

This week’s Friday News Analysis will highlight our nominations of Presidents Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir Putin for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. I want to share the email from NorwayI received a few days ago. Please note that the deadline for submitting nominations is tomorrow at midnight.

Congratulations!

You have been granted access to the Nobel Peace Prize electronic nomination form. Access is granted under the condition that all personal information you provided is accurate and that you belong to a group authorized to make nominations. The electronic nomination form allows you to nominate up to five candidates for the same effort; however, please note that the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be shared among more than three nominated candidates. The Prize may also be awarded to institutions and organizations.

Nomination

The nomination consists of three main parts:

the name of the candidate(s)
a brief justification for the nomination
a somewhat longer statement explaining why, in your opinion, the nominated person(s) and/or organization(s) deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

You may upload additional documentation in PDF format. Please do not use long file names.

You may submit one nomination at a time. After submitting a nomination, you may log on again to submit another nomination.

Please note that the nomination deadline is 31 January at 12 midnight CET.

Protection of personal data

The Norwegian Nobel Institute’s treatment of personal data is governed by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

By submitting a nomination, you will allow The Norwegian Nobel Institute, on behalf of The Norwegian Nobel Committee to store some of your personal data to verify your right to nominate. Your name, institutional affiliation, and your current position at said institution will be stored in our archives for historical purposes. Your name and e-mail address may be used during the year of the nomination to confirm the validity of the nomination, but not for any other purposes. Data in nominations deemed invalid will be deleted.

Back to the grindstone…

Enjoy your weekend.

Sincerely,

Abraham A. van Kempen
Sr. Editor

Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know One Another and the Other

Part 1: Introduction

Incentivizing President Donald J. Trump, President Xi Jinping, and President Vladimir V. Putin to Help Heal a Broken Humanity

Will Presidents Trump, Jinping, and Putin work together to renew humanity through hope and unity, emphasizing dialogue and cooperation in a multipolar world?

Can bad people do good and vice versa?

Will the Nobel Peace Prize be enough of an incentive to enrapture the most powerful leaders of our time to become role models to engender global peace?

Our world, driven by shared deterrence, is becoming multipolar, requiring focused reciprocity, meaningful alliances, and verifiable trust, indispensable for survival.

Obstacles like conflicts, tensions, and unstable alliances can be managed and minimized. A multipolar world needs collaboration and inclusive leadership to overcome differences and cultivate unity.

The Foundation stresses building—not burning—bridges for humanity's future. It cites Middle Eastern dialogue, Iran-Russia, and US-Russia back-channel teamwork to prevent World War III. The BRICS Alliance exemplifies turning enemies into allies — “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Our mission is to heal a broken humanity by rediscovering human dignity, equality, and justice. Our core belief, “destroy your enemy by becoming friends,” embodies peaceful coexistence.

Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative. Warfare is cataclysmic – catastrophic.

Deterrence rules!

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited and annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

Part 2: Off to the races. Nothing is more noble and worthwhile than pursuing global peace (Maximum 2000 words).

Neither President Trump, President Jinping, nor President Putin can do it alone. They need to work together to achieve the almost-impossible and cooperate around a common cause despite their differences. Their words and actions show greater understanding and connection than disagreement, suggesting harmony is possible.

The Building the Bridge Foundation promotes a balanced world through peaceful international collaboration, emphasizing teamwork over conflict to build a better future, showing that cooperation outweighs confrontation.

Donald Trump (United States): Supports "America First" policies, emphasizing sovereignty and questioning alliances. His withdrawal from international commitments has shifted global power towards a more balanced distribution among major nations, reducing U.S. dominance.
Vladimir Putin (Russia): Actively champions a multipolar world as a counterweight to Western dominance. He calls for respect for national sovereignty, non-interference, and a global order where multiple centers of power coexist and cooperate.
Xi Jinping (China): Promotes initiatives like the Belt and Road and emphasizes "win-win cooperation." He urges reform of global governance to better represent the interests of emerging and developing countries, aiming for a more diverse and balanced international system.
All: Advocate for a greater role for emerging economies in global affairs. They support multilateralism, reform of international institutions, and strategic partnerships, aiming for an inclusive world order in which no single country dominates.

In summary, President Donald Trump, President Xi Jinping, and President Vladimir Putin support a multipolar world but pursue different strategies:

Trump emphasizes sovereignty and reducing US dominance
Jinping aims to reform global governance to favor emerging countries.
Putin focuses on respecting sovereignty and supporting multiple power centers

Each leader, from their unique perspective, supports multilateralism and inclusive reforms to the global system. Although they employ different approaches, all three aim to create a world order where power and influence are more evenly shared among key states, instead of being concentrated in one. However, they clash with the Neocons or Neo-Colonialists in the West, who still depend on ‘Western Exceptionalism’ rooted in Divine Right to mold the world in their image. But the world has evolved. The former colonies have matured and are catching up to the old empires. The Collective West has lost its footing in the geopolitical landscape and in the race for global dominance.

The world rejects the precepts of Western dominance:

What is ours is ours.
What is yours is ours also.
You’re either for us or against us.
It’s either our way or the highway.
If you’re not for us, you’re dead meat.

President Donald J. Trump

To navigate conflicting interests during his presidency, he uses unique performances to engage and communicate. His goal is to protect America from itself by tackling issues like the $40 trillion debt. Mr. Trump divides and conquers by giving allies and opponents the messages they want, winning support from both.

President Trump’s Leadership Style

President Trump is an unconventional leader, known for confrontational style, social media use, and controlling the news cycle. Critics say he distracts, reshapes narratives, and uses controversy as "smoke and mirrors"—creating illusions and diversion—and “cloak and dagger"—employing secretive, possibly dishonest tactics. In politics, these metaphors imply clever strategies, influencing opinion, and covert actions. Supporters see his honesty and unpredictability as advantages for navigating politics and reacting quickly.

Being U.S. President involves isolating duties, often seen as burdensome. If Trump felt confined, his opposition to norms and procedures might be attempts to escape, whether as genuine reforms or strategic moves to avoid accountability.

His gestures, whether overt or private, aim to attract attention and create impact. This skill in nonverbal communication shields and shapes the story, maintaining secrecy and unpredictability. Living in the White House is paradoxical for Trump. The iconic building, symbolizing power and freedom, can also feel like a gilded cage. Surrounded by security, advisors, and history, he feels both empowered and limited—under global scrutiny yet often isolated by his duties.

Although the public sees him as an authoritative leader, behind the scenes, he manages the contradictions of influence and restraint, as if walking on thin ice with a sword hanging over him on a fragile thread.

President Xi Jinping

Xi highlighted that the current global order no longer reflects the present. In 2022, he launched a Global Security Initiative emphasizing 'indivisible security,' also endorsed by President Putin. China invested billions into the Belt and Road Initiative, linking 140 countries and boosting its influence in Asia, Africa, and South America. Its military growth includes new ports and a third aircraft carrier. These actions worry the West, showing China’s aims to dominate the South China Sea and reintegrate Taiwan, challenging the unipolar world order.

The Chinese Constitution was amended to allow President Xi Jinping to stay in power for life.
He aims to make China a modern, prosperous, socialist nation by 2050. The first steps toward a 'new' China were taken in the 1980s by Deng Xiaoping. Xi continues this path, transforming China into a capitalist country with a socialist flavor.
In recent years, Xi's China has progressively established itself as a major economic, political, and military power on the global stage.

China's rapid GDP per capita growth outpaces Europe and America, catching the West unprepared. Efforts to limit China's rise have repeatedly failed over 75 years, with all measures remaining ineffective as China continues to strengthen. This year, China’s GDP is expected to grow two to three times faster than the U.S., a trend that has persisted for 30 years despite challenges such as the Seventh Fleet, Taiwan tensions, economic agreements, and regional alliances such as Pacific Partnership and ASEAN. Meanwhile, the decline of the US and Europe persists, while China's rise and BRICS expansion fuel fears, resentment, and challenges to China.

President Vladimir Putin

While Brussels, Strasbourg, Washington D.C., and London pressured Russia on military and regime issues, Mr. Putin unified many nations for a multipolar world, forming alliances with Brazil, India, China, and South Africa to expand BRICS and boost global cooperation.

President Putin has initiated an effort to change how countries interact globally. The peace process resembles a tug-of-war—an ongoing effort—that needs diplomacy and humility instead of military power. No nation is naturally superior to another.

In February 2007, he presented his vision of a multipolar world at the 43rd Munich Security Conference. European elites dismissed Mr. Putin’s 8,000-word speech as a call to revive the Soviet Union's prominence. Multipolarity seeks to shift the international system from single dominance to a balanced framework in which no nation holds absolute influence, preserving sovereignty. Under President Putin, Russia champions dialogue, respect, and non-interference, supporting a multipolar world where all nations have an equal voice and resonates with those marginalized by dominant powers.

His view of fairness and equality in global affairs has gained support, especially from nations seeking alternatives to Western-led governance. The goal of peace involves ongoing conflict resolution and diplomacy, where parties must recognize limits and respect differing views. This contrasts with hegemonic systems reliant on force or coercion.

A core principle of multipolarity is that no nation is inherently superior to another. It dismisses exceptionalism and supports a system where all countries have an equal say in shaping the future. By encouraging inclusivity, the goal is to lower tensions and promote cooperation, leading to a more stable and peaceful world.

Mr. Putin’s support for a multipolar world sparks debates on geopolitics. Achieving full equality among nations is difficult, but humility, dialogue, and fairness are vital for constructive relations. Moving toward a multipolar system signifies a shift toward international cooperation for peace and prosperity.

Multipolarity is more than a slogan; it results from history driven by cultural diversity and civilizations asserting themselves after Western sidelining. Russia aims not to dismantle the system for advantage but to shift from hierarchy to a balanced global order emphasizing mutual respect over coercion.

Within this framework, Eurasia goes beyond just geography, acting as a civilizational bridge linking East and West, North and South. Here, balance is seen as a form of wisdom, not weakness. Putin sees Russia at the center of this region—not as a dominant power, but as an intermediary; not as a destroyer, but as a creator.

Russia's idea of multipolarity is based on mutual recognition rather than chaos among competing powers. Meanwhile, the old world clings to false hopes of control; the plan for the new order is already in place.

Please note! This section is incomplete. The best is yet to come. I will add 600 more words and append the nominees' primary speeches as PDF files to the Nobel Peace Prize application, reflecting their views on the future of geopolitics and global peace.

THERE WILL BE THREE CENTERS OF POWER IN THE NEW WORLD

African countries have undergone the most significant geopolitical recalibration over the past century

RT composite. © Getty Images/Jeff Bottari;Sefa Karacan;Suo Takekuma

By Adamu B. Garba II, Executive Chairman of IPI Group Limited, Nigerian 2019/2023 presidential aspirant

HomeAfrica
19 January 2026

Annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

Analysts' predictions for two decades are now official policy: the American dominance after the Cold War, justified by liberal internationalism and universal values, has ended. The West’s claim that its foreign policy was driven by democracy and human rights is proven false when faced with clear national interests.

A Tripolar Order has replaced previous agreements, led by the US, China, and Russia, shaping 21st-century international relations.

For Africa, this marks the biggest geopolitical shift since 1884's Berlin Conference, when Western powers divided the continent in the Scramble for Africa. Now, the continent isn't open for European division but is managed by new, non-Western actors.

READ MORE: The Alaska summit resonates farther than you might think

The US in Africa: What’s different now?

Contrary to the myth of a globally engaged superpower, the United States has executed a deliberate retrenchment. Its latest National Security Strategy is a strategic contraction, focusing on consolidating the American hemisphere. This ‘Fortress America’ doctrine emphasizes economic and security integration from Canada to Chile, making the Western Hemisphere an impregnable influence zone. Secondary interests are for the Anglosphere – the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – aligned nations that serve as force multipliers.

Africa and Asia lack a clear engagement plan in the document. The U.S. has withdrawn from strategic competition in Africa, closing bases, ending military aid, and defunding democracy programs. It relies on outsourcing for critical resources like cobalt, lithium, and rare earths, essential for its digital and green economies. Instead of direct relations, the U.S. prefers large deals with China and Russia, viewing Africa mainly as a resource provider rather than a diplomatic partner.

The Eastern and Southern hegemon, master of the supply chain

China’s sphere, acknowledged in a tripartite understanding, is vast and economically coherent. It includes South Asia, East Asia, and Africa's mineral-rich regions: Central Africa (notably the DRC), East Africa (ports and belts), and Southern Africa. A confidential but binding US-China trade pact has formalized this.

READ MORE: Africa has something China and the West need, but will it profit?

China, via state-owned enterprises and BRI infrastructure, ensures secure extraction and transit of critical minerals from Africa to global markets. In return, the US has agreed to transfer advanced technologies like Nvidia chips and has ceded strategic control of regional security and satellite dominance to Beijing. China now controls Africa's resource nodes and information domains, becoming the leading monopolist of the green and digital supply chain.

Russia: The Northern and Western European security guarantor

Russia’s sphere of influence, solidified by the upcoming ‘Putrump’ agreement (the strategic understanding between the Putin and Trump administrations regarding the Russia-Ukraine peace deal and Europe's future), centers on robust security measures and political backing. It extends from a Finlandized Europe across the Mediterranean to North Africa, West Africa, and important Central African countries.

The United States' decision to withdraw support for Ukraine was not an act of isolationism but a strategic move aimed at removing the last military obstacle to Russia’s efforts to pacify Europe. With Ukraine neutralized, European nations, devoid of credible autonomous defense capabilities, will progressively adapt to Moscow’s security and energy policies.

In Africa, Russia focuses on backing political stability and security, not on economic growth. Through initiatives like the Africa Corps, it helps maintain security during rebellions and unrest, emphasizing sovereignty and influence in the Sahel and coastal countries.

READ MORE: Africa’s bold choices: Examining the strength of Russia ties in 2025

Africa remapped: The collapse of Francafrique

Europe's colonial legacy is fading, signaling change. France, the UK, Belgium, Portugal, and Spain's influence—via the CFA franc, the military, and diplomacy—is declining and is expected to be gone by 2028. African leaders relying on Paris or London for security and trade risk their nations' future, risking marginalization and economic issues.

Africa functions within a duopoly: Russian security oversight and Chinese economic management, creating a synergistic partnership.

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), once seen mainly as a platform for Franco-Nigerian influence, is changing. Its core principle of collective security faces challenges from the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), including Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. The AES reflects Moscow’s growing military and political role in Africa, supported by security guarantees from Moscow. Its influence is expanding, and countries like Guinea-Bissau, Togo, Ghana, Senegal, and Mauritania might join by 2026, seeking stability outside Western support. Chad and the Central African Republic are also expected to shift from regional groups to this stronger alliance. Meanwhile, other parts of ECOWAS could become a smaller coalition of coastal nations—Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Liberia—that risk becoming symbolic with less strategic importance.

My homeland, Nigeria, uses an innovative management approach. Instead of falling apart, the country is governed through a system leveraging regional strengths. The Northwestern and Southwestern regions, facing security issues, get support from Russia. Meanwhile, the Central, Eastern, and Northeastern areas, rich in minerals and in need of infrastructure, collaborate with China’s economic programs. This isn’t a conspiracy but a pragmatic division among global players to maintain stability and the flow of resources without harmful competition.

READ MORE: Adieu: Africa’s military breakup with France is official

What’s in it for Africa?

African elites must recognize key truths for future success. The old Westphalian idea of equal sovereignty is outdated. In the new Tripolar Order, sovereignty is complex. Nuclear states hold full sovereignty, while others have limited or delegated sovereignty, often restricted by their main superpower.

Institutions like the UN, WHO, and NATO are increasingly viewed as outdated remnants, potentially becoming tools for Tripolar dominance.

The era of aid and moralistic conditionalities has ended, replaced by transactional diplomacy focused on exchanging favors. China seeks resources and strategic partnerships; Russia values political loyalty and economic gains; the US aims for steady resource flow. African leaders can boost influence by developing negotiation skills and offering assets like minerals, ports, or votes in exchange for tangible rewards such as infrastructure, weapons, or stability. This fosters balanced, mutually beneficial international relations.

The idea of U.S. military intervention—supporting democracy, fighting terrorism, or stopping genocide—needs reevaluation. The U.S. has stopped deploying troops in Africa, with responsibility now falling to external actors. Russian security forces mostly lead peacekeeping and conflict efforts, with China also involved where interests are threatened.

In Africa, the debate has shifted from questioning “Who should we partner with?” to how to leverage our position. Success will depend on practical methods, effective transactional strategies, and peaceful alignment with key power structures.

RICHARD WOLFF: CHINA WON THE ECONOMIC WAR & THE WEST FRAGMENTS

Prof. Glenn Diesen discusses with Prof. Richard Wolff the changing global power landscape, emphasizing the decline of the West, China's ascent, and the evolving roles of the US, Europe, and Russia in a multipolar world. The conversation covers economic, political, and security issues these actors face and explores potential future trends in international relations and economic systems.

China’s ascent is transforming the international landscape: Its swift economic expansion and pragmatic mixed economy undermine Western dominance, rendering traditional containment approaches less effective and encouraging a re-evaluation of global power dynamics.
U.S. strategic limits and unilateralism: The United States encounters competition from China and other powers, which results in more unilateral moves and a transactional mindset toward allies, increasingly seeing Europe as a liability rather than a partner.
Europe’s fragile situation and internal disagreements: The continent's political fragmentation, economic compromises with the U.S., and limited strategic vision diminish its global influence and hinder its capacity for independent or cohesive action.
Russia’s geopolitical shift involved redirecting its focus from Europe to Eurasia following unsuccessful integration efforts. Currently, it is closely aligned with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, complicating Western strategies and alliances.
Nationalism and Internal Challenges in the West: Persistent nationalism and internal divisions within the United States and Europe impede adaptation to emerging global realities, with oversimplified narratives concealing intricate geopolitical dynamics.
Cautious stance on conflict: Although tensions remain, the nuclear age and lessons from history influence reluctance towards military intervention. Debates continue over the risks of going to war with Russia or China.
Economic inequality fuels social unrest: The United States faces unprecedented inequality, sparking widespread anger and events like the AFL-CIO general strike, which reflect deep social and economic tensions.
Military spending disparities: Europe’s planned military increases are modest compared to the U.S.’s significant budget growth, underscoring challenges in European defense capabilities and strategic autonomy.
Reevaluating economic models: The West’s confidence in free markets faces a dead end, whereas China’s pragmatic mix of state and private enterprise presents a successful model that merits examination and potential adaptation.
Potential for European realignment: Europe could gain by forming strategic partnerships and sharing technology with Russia and China, promoting unity and economic strength separate from U.S. dominance.

Watch the Video Here (56 minutes, 08 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
24 January 2026

The Future of the West: A Discussion with Professor Richard Wolff on Geopolitics and Economics

Welcome back. Today, we welcome Professor Richard Wolff to discuss the future of the West, NATO, Europe, and the current state of the global economy. While covering every detail in a short podcast might be challenging, we plan to explore these urgent issues as thoroughly as possible. Thank you for being with us.

Current Events in the West

The Western political sphere, once seen as a unified community, has historically relied on specific security and economic systems. After World War II, the U.S. provided favorable trade deals and security guarantees to Europe, leveraging its geopolitical power and rivalry with the Soviet Union. In the post-Cold War era, the U.S. sought to assert global dominance, with NATO's expansion playing a key role. Currently, the world appears to be shifting toward a more multipolar order, marked by major changes across the global landscape.

The United States is nearing its limits, facing fierce competition from China and other major powers, which calls for strategic reorganization. As a result, U.S. policies have become more unilateral, while Europe's role is increasingly viewed as a burden. The U.S. aims to maximize its influence by taking a transactional, extractive approach toward allies—an attitude that existed even before the Trump era. There is also surprise at how quickly Europe seems to be falling apart. Is this a common view, and what are the real developments in the West? Every week brings new, seemingly strange events.

Personal and Historical Perspective

Professor Wolff presents a perspective influenced by his American and European backgrounds. Based in New York City, he leverages a lifetime of experience studying and working in the U.S., alongside strong family and linguistic connections to Europe. His focus on history offers a framework for interpreting current events through the perspective of historical developments.

From this perspective, the key development isn't about a specific leader or the U.S. "going rogue." Instead, the most important change is China's rise. The West was caught off guard by China’s emergence as a global power, and attempts to contain or slow its growth have not succeeded. Over the last seventy-five years, the West has yet to develop an effective strategy to confront this challenge.

Shifts in Global Power

Following the conclusion of World War II, the United States ascended to the status of a predominant global power, owing to Japan's defeat and Europe's decline. The Cold War period, characterized by tensions with the Soviet Union, was a significant chapter in this narrative. Upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the late 20th century, the United States assumed a leading role during a unipolar phase. This period engendered a robust sense of manifest destiny and a desire for global leadership, driven by neoliberal globalization and the outsourcing of manufacturing, which collectively fostered a confident and ambitious outlook.

In the early 2000s, a new challenge arose: China, whose economy was expanding at a considerably faster pace than the United States’. Despite the United States' military presence and strategic alliances in Asia, China continues to make significant advancements, seemingly impervious to Western strategies.

The diminishing influence of the United States and Europe, coupled with China’s ascendancy and the expansion of BRICS, engenders a perception of crisis within the Western nations. These developments elicit a spectrum of reactions, spanning from apprehension and resentment to increasingly confrontational measures; however, the distinct differences between China and the former Soviet Union render such strategies largely ineffective. This prevailing climate of hysteria has precipitated unconventional political realignments in the United States, underscoring the tensions characterizing this epoch.

U.S. Relations with Europe and Other Allies

In the United States, partnerships with countries like Mexico and Canada are often viewed as practical agreements focused on short-term benefits and a willingness to use military force if needed. Similar patterns are seen in Western Europe. During the Cold War, the U.S. offered military protection against the Soviet threat; as this threat waned, attention turned toward securing economic commitments from European allies. Suggestions for Europe to obtain U.S. energy resources and make investments highlight Europe's growing dependence and susceptibility.

This dynamic is putting strain on Europe’s social welfare systems and political unity. The U.S. appears to prioritize short-term advantages over long-term stability, recognizing that time favors China. The strategy now involves extracting resources from the informal empire—Europe, Canada, Japan, and Mexico—as a last effort to counter China and the BRICS.

Europe’s Prospects and Internal Divisions

Questions remain about whether Europe’s ongoing instability could eventually lead to greater unity, allowing it to build a more independent and robust global economic stance. Greenland’s resource development initiatives underscore the strategic power plays at play, with the U.S. seeking to block Europe from gaining new advantages. What may seem like disrespectful actions toward Europe are often deliberate strategies to preserve U.S. influence amidst the shifting global landscape.

European leaders are criticized for lacking the political vision to explore alternatives to American leadership, resulting in concessions that weaken and divide the continent. The alliance with the U.S. is increasingly viewed as unstable, as European countries focus on self-preservation and overlook strategic opportunities. The European Union, comprising twenty-seven member states, is offering fewer economic benefits and has shifted its focus toward U.S. interests and more authoritarian policies.

It is quite evident that tensions are engendering division among European nations, and there exists understandable skepticism regarding the prospect of a unified Europe opposing the United States. Simultaneously, China's growing strength and Russia's evolving strategies add further complexity to the geopolitical landscape. Although Russia initially sought to collaborate closely with Europe, broken agreements and shifting alliances have redirected its focus toward Eurasia, aligning more closely with China’s Belt and Road Initiative and recent industrial endeavors.

Russia’s Role and Strategic Shifts

The United States and Europe view Russia differently. Europe sees counterbalancing Russia as essential, while the U.S. considers Russia less threatening and doubts the benefit of strengthening ties with China. This difference is seen as a strategic error that overlooks the wider consequences of China’s growing power.

Russia’s historical trajectory—from emphasizing Europe during Peter the Great’s era, through the communist revolution, to a shift toward Asia—reflects phases of transformation similar to those seen in other regions. Conversely, Europe and the West have not experienced such fundamental changes, frequently depending on nationalism to move away from feudal structures and develop modern nations.

Nationalism and Internal Challenges

The ongoing persistence of nationalism in Europe and the United States impedes adaptation to emerging realities. In the United States, internal divisions and a limited global outlook hinder effective participation in international affairs. Oversimplified narratives propagated by media, politicians, and scholars distort the complexities of the current circumstances and hinder substantive progress.

At the same time, Russia and China acknowledge their advantage of having time on their side. Their leaders watch the developing situation calmly, carefully noting the West’s occasionally counterproductive actions without rushing to act. This patient and intentional strategy, along with some missteps by the US and European countries, is gradually shifting the global power balance.

Security, Conflict, and the Future of War

Major changes in global power dynamics usually occur after significant wars, as countries are hesitant to lose influence. The risk of confrontation with Russia or China is seen as particularly dangerous, especially with nuclear threats in play. Today’s discussions show a mix of showmanship and genuine concern, with disagreements over whether military action is urgent or appropriate. The experiences from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine demonstrate that military intervention has its limits, even against weaker opponents.

Economic Inequality and Social Tensions

The U.S. is experiencing unprecedented economic inequality, with the top 10% consuming over half of all goods. This gap fuels widespread anger and unrest, including actions like the AFL-CIO-organized general strike in Minneapolis—the first since the Great Depression. Economic frustrations, opposition to policies and political leaders, and increasing social divisions highlight the seriousness of today’s situation.

Military Spending and Europe’s Position

European efforts to boost military spending are insignificant compared to the U.S. commitments. The U.S. plans to increase its military budget by $600 billion within a single year—a feat Europe cannot replicate. These facts highlight the difficulties Europe encounters in establishing a strong military or strategic presence against the United States.

Rethinking Economic Models

Following two world wars, the West seemed to recognize the risks of unregulated capitalism, resulting in greater intervention and regulation. Yet, the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in an era of liberal economic policies and increased confidence in free markets. This strategy now faces an impasse, prompting calls to reevaluate the dominant economic ideology.

The Chinese Model and Lessons for the West

China’s economic achievement stems from a pragmatic strategy that combines state involvement with private enterprise. The Chinese focus on practical questions about the ideal roles of the government and the private sector, leading to a hybrid economic model. This approach is motivated by outcome-oriented reasoning rather than ideological commitments, setting it apart from the rigid systems preferred by Russia and the West.

More and more people in the United States are curious about what makes Chinese companies successful in areas like electric vehicles, solar energy, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors. Instead of getting caught up in debates about whether public or private companies are better, many find it more helpful to focus on the results they achieve. A common concern is that the private sector often prefers to limit government interference, a familiar issue in capitalist societies with universal voting rights.

Political Change and the Possibility of Realignment

Recent developments, such as the general strike in Minneapolis, indicate growing recognition of the need for systemic reform. Even populist leaders have not succeeded in implementing essential reforms; instead, they have resorted to theatrical displays. It is anticipated that public pressure in both Europe and America will catalyze changes akin to those observed in Russia and China.

Europe is urged to reevaluate its current course, possibly by forming alliances with Russia and China or developing new modes of unity and economic strategies. For example, encouraging Chinese investment via joint ventures and technology transfers could boost prosperity and lay the groundwork for unity. This strategy might also promote more peaceful relations with Russia and establish a more balanced relationship with the United States.

Concluding Thoughts

Europe remains a prosperous market with considerable potential. By challenging existing practices and forming strategic alliances, it can achieve its goals more efficiently. Nevertheless, current political leaders seem unlikely to promote such change, indicating a need for political renewal. Future success depends on moving past old ideologies and divisions, collaborating with new partners, and balancing international relations.

As global dynamics evolve, the need for adaptability and openness to new approaches becomes increasingly vital. European policymakers and business leaders should remain alert to emerging opportunities and make decisions that prioritize long-term interests over short-term political advantages. This ongoing change offers Europe a rare opportunity to reshape its position on the global stage, aligning its economic and diplomatic strategies with the realities of the 21st century.

This transitional period underscores the importance of robust education and research programs to drive innovation across industries. By investing in human talent and encouraging international collaboration, Europe can enhance its competitive advantage and build resilience against future challenges. Ultimately, embracing adaptability, strategic partnership, and learning from diverse approaches will enable Europe to effectively navigate an increasingly complex global landscape.

Thank you for joining us in this in-depth exploration of the evolving geopolitical and economic landscape.

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're seeking the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge fosters understanding, dispels prejudice, and sparks a desire to learn more about the subject. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet, its misuse can cause untold harm, leading to misunderstandings, prejudices, and conflicts.

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________