[spodi]

Hi I finished Henry Kissinger's new book "World Order" a few weeks ago and was wondering if anyone else here had read it and what's your opinion of it. Also what's your opinion of world order today? China recently surpassed the U.S. economy (you can argue that though) yet they're heading for a slowdown with the rest of East Asia and Europe according to the IMF. Also this year there has been many comparisons with 1914 and 1939. So for the geopolitical wonks, what's your outlook on the relations among nations in the next 15 to 20 years, who are the winners and losers of the 2020s? All opinions are appreciated.

[Solastalgia]

I haven't read the book, but I'm interested to hear what his main thesis is for near-future geopolitics. If you wouldn't mind giving a small summary, that'd be greatly appreciated.

In my view, I think we're currently seeing the downfall of US hegemony, and the rise of a more mulitpolar world order. The US will continue to exercise it's military prowess throughout the world, to try and protect the illusion of hegemony (Wolfowitz Doctrine), but this will actually contribute to it's downfall in this new world order. Hopefully, the US eats a slice of humble pie that forces it off it's current militaristic path (& instead focus on fixing all our domestic issues), before China has a good military in the 2020s. If not, then we could very well see a confrontation in those days (unfortunately).

[spodi]

Alright so a short summary of World Order is Henry goes in full depth of history like he did with Diplomacy but here he tells the story of four main actors, where they're coming from, how they view themselves, their neighbors and the world. The ending I don't want to ruin because its his call for the future but it just paints an interesting picture of the present day interconnected world and not just nations but peoples, economies and businesses and how to govern those chaotic organizations along with an already shaky world.

As for your response of the state of the world I totally agree about America's rapidly declining hegemony. The sad part is we did it to ourselves. The first decade of the 21st century will be remembered sadly our hubris moment. As for China, they have to socially modernize if they want to be number one. Without that they'll be in a worse position then as America was when we were the world's police. As for the multipolar world, supposedly that will bring more balance than a uni and bipolar world, we'll have to wait and see. But there is another theory called the G zero world where there is too many actors (state and non state) pulling for pull which creates a vaccum which will just make the world even more chaotic. Is everything becoming up for grabs?

[Jed1]

The world order he has championed is one monolithic world government controlled by giant corporations (a few of them) and the three or four largest international bankers who control the western world, and are trying to control the world..ie Rothschilds, Rockefellers etc..the fly in the ointment has been the Muslim and Arab countries who the "policeman" USA are now destroying to bring them in line..the western countries including the UsA are part of it for a long time, and the people can expect complete enslavement..Russia and China pose a problem for these globalists, especially China, because they would like to see the world domination under their control, and not the western corporations who are mainly controlled by Tel Aviv (especially the international bankersters)..so there will be a conflict coming up with the west pitted against China and the east..interesting times ahead!

[spodi]

The world order he has championed is one monolithic world government controlled by giant corporations (a few of them) and the three or four largest international bankers who control the western world, and are trying to control the world..ie Rothschilds, Rockefellers etc..the fly in the ointment has been the Muslim and Arab countries who the "policeman" USA are now destroying to bring them in line..the western countries including the UsA are part of it for a long time, and the people can expect complete enslavement..Russia and China pose a problem for these globalists, especially China, because they would like to see the world domination under their control, and not the western corporations who are mainly controlled by Tel Aviv (especially the international bankersters)..so there will be a conflict coming up with the west pitted against China and the east..interesting times ahead!

Now when you say that, are you speaking from a conspiracy theorist point of view or a factional point of view. Any legitimate evidence?

[JohnRawls]

The G Zero World is more likely. A bipolar world is definately very positive, but a tripolar or quadropolar worlds are not, because the more weaker individuals adverseries are, the easier for a all out conflict to begin, not to mention they can maintain several conflicts in different parts of the globe. Bipolar > One Superstate > Multipolar.

Best case we get split NATO-Westernunion vs SCO-Eurasian union. Its the best case scenario we can hope for a bipolar world. Worst case scenario is that Eu colapses which will cause high chance of Nato collapse after it which in the end, make Eurasian union pointless. So we will get a multipolar world of many competing interests, aka more chaos.

I dont really buy Kissengers 'liberalise' China. China can't be liberal in the same sense Russia can't be liberal. It will just fail, because both of those countries are too large and are not homogenouse. Liberalisation of the soviet union, destroyed it. Same thing will happen to china if they liberalise. Absense of real democracy is causing problems for China, they just dont have any other option or way around it right now or in the forseable future.

[spodi]

The G zero world is a very interesting theory for the future and also very chaotic. Its quite plausible too. First with unregulated banks and corporations. There hasn't been any impacting reforms since the 2008 meltdown which means there probably won't be. With their expanding power and influence, they will diminish the nation-state's power. Secondly, big tech and its ever expanding influence on the individual. A key pro and con with regards to tech is the internet. Free information on one hand is great but state and personal secrets will only grow less secure. With social media we could see individual opinions rise to the mass level to compete with legitimate powers. Third the split of the people from their governments. Internal problems which diminish the state's power. I'm not talking about revolution, just serious apathy and dissent. The world has some serious issues today, the average human is becoming more educated and if legitimate power doesn't fix these issues people may not revolt but become apathetic and turn their backs on government. Its very interesting. The internet is my bet for balance of world order today against the growing threat of G zero. With that though will be chaos between lone wolf hackers and hacket networks vs governments and corporations. Do you see the lines being drawn?