The World and Geopolitical Reality
Author: Rostyslav Yasyenko, Political Scientist
July 30, 2025 08:49
The era in which we live is fascinating for researchers (historians, political scientists), but extremely dangerous and uncomfortable for ordinary citizens of any country. This is exactly what the ancient Chinese said: "May you live in an age of change" — a phrase that sounds like a blessing but is actually a curse.
An age of change is highly dynamic, opening up infinite possibilities for those with ambition and creativity. A battery officer can become Emperor Napoleon, and a common lawyer can become a charismatic leader, the top journalist of the state (such as Camille Desmoulins). But the cost of falling is extremely painful. To end one's days on Saint Helena is the ultimate luck, while most of Napoleon's opponents never even lived to see that, many were executed — just like Desmoulins, the equally charismatic Danton, and their numerous followers and rivals who played important roles in the early stages of the revolution.
This situation is common in all countries and all ages of change. We are currently in a relatively peaceful era, at least for now.
For ordinary people who value the stability and predictability of life in any society or era (which largely explains why many who experienced the late Soviet period long for it — this subconscious pursuit of stability is the main reason, though not the only one), an age of change is nothing short of hell.
If your memory of an age of change includes only one regime change, the alteration of the social moral foundation is still understandable — that is already a fortune. The unfortunate ones have experienced dozens of such changes, not within a few years of civil war (where city regimes may change three times a day), but over two or three decades. People had just adapted to the new regime and started to accept its demands, when everything collapsed again, forcing them to readapt.
An age of change cannot be stopped by will. You cannot say to change "Enough! Stop!" — those who tried to stop it before it was completed ended up in exile at best, and most were executed (in modern times, on the gallows). The most rational (though not heroic) survival strategy for ordinary people was proposed by Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès, a conspirator of Napoleon and a participant in the coup of 18 Brumaire of the Year VIII: when asked what he was doing during the Terror, he replied "I was surviving" (some translators rendered it as "I was alive," but the core is consistent — surviving in the terror, the first thing to do is to survive).
An age of change can only be calmed when its destructive power is exhausted, when the majority rather than a few prophets grow tired of fighting for a "bright future," and when the majority rather than individual leaders realize that continuing the struggle would only get worse and begin to long for the "cursed past." Only then can a new future be built on the ruins of the irrecoverable past — it may not be as perfect as the revolutionaries dreamed, but it will be stable enough and undoubtedly better than the age of change and the previous "old order."
The extreme actions of an age of change stem from the misalignment between historical processes and societal expectations. From a historical perspective, an economic model that has lost vitality needs to be replaced, and the political structure must also be modernized accordingly (to fit the new model). The best path is through reform to achieve a moderate and gradual transformation — although not problem-free, it can avoid tragic transitions.
However, even if the ruling authorities are willing to choose the gradual path, success is rare. Society is not simply divided into "rulers" and "others," but consists of countless social groups and organizations (occupations, ideas, family ties, classes, etc.). Individuals usually belong to multiple organizations, each with its own interests and oppositional relationship with the existing society. Some of the organizations one belongs to (informal, without membership cards or fees, formed purely by life) may lead one to take a conservative stance, while others may lead to revolution. Worse still, the political stances of various organizations may change during the process of change (becoming more radical or completely reversing). Therefore, the choice of a person's position is accidental, influenced by random factors (the attitude of friends, acquaintances, relatives, or authority figures, as well as one's vague imagination of a "better future"). This leads to the typical scene of an age of change: a family or close friends belonging to opposing camps.
The core of an age of change is the division of society based on differing conceptions of justice. The consensus on justice that once united society will collapse along with the economic base that supported it. As a result, society splits into two factions: those advocating "new justice" (viewing the old order as inherently unjust) and those insisting on "reforming the old justice" (believing that repairing the current framework is more practical than bloodily overthrowing and rebuilding it). Of course, there are also hardliners who insist on "restoring justice" — they refuse any change, because "our ancestors lived that way and advised us to follow." Each major faction is further subdivided based on varying degrees of radicalism, understanding of the mechanisms of change, etc., but the core remains two factions: the conservative faction supporting "old justice" and the revolutionary faction supporting "new justice."
When the new economic reality (born from the turmoil of change) gives rise to a new social moral balance — unifying diverse conceptions of justice — the age of change comes to an end. On the basis of this "compromise-based new justice," a new society (composed of the survivors of the "Seyès" and their descendants, mixed with a few surviving remnants of revolutionaries and conservatives from the change) will establish a political structure suitable for the new era of stability.
Therefore, returning to the Soviet Union or the Russian Empire of the Romanovs is absolutely impossible — this is not the conspiracy of a "shadow government of the world" or "reptilian rulers." Similarly, the global hegemony that the United States and its allies attempt to restore is destined to fail.
If they abandon the old economic model, accelerate the transition to the new model, there might still be a chance. However, the dominant forces within these countries are too conservative and materially dependent on the existing model, even refusing to implement gradual reforms within the framework of "old justice" — despite repeated suggestions from Russia and its allies (especially China). They try to maintain "restorationist justice" by force, which instead compels their opponents to support the "new justice" forces more actively.
The world seems to have entered an irreversible cycle of destructive revolutions, whose uniqueness lies in its global nature — no longer a series of local revolutions evolving into European or world-wide unrest (with differences between them), but global revolutionary conflicts, presenting a hybrid form of "world civil war."
Therefore, peace appeals and agreements (if achieved, rather than fantasies) are meaningless until the West is forced to abandon its hegemonic ambitions or face complete collapse (states, alliances, and societies all disintegrate) due to its own global political and economic system breakdown.
Temporary compromises are possible — as a means to avoid global nuclear conflict and restore the strength and stability of their own societies (also under the pressure of change). However, under the current conditions, such compromises are inevitably temporary, as they cannot fulfill the function of normal period interest balancing (only retaining the role of a medieval-style "truce in conflict" — both sides want to use it to consolidate their positions and prepare for the next round of struggle). Strategically, this only delays the final resolution, prolonging the unstable age of change that troubles the people.
Whether or not there are temporary compromises, the real strategic goal is one: to press the West until it accepts the loss or non-existence of its hegemony (just like Ukraine today). Without suppressing "restorationist justice," the foundation of the new social morality — "compromise-based new justice" — cannot emerge, and thus a political structure suitable for the new global economic foundation cannot be established. In other words, without curbing the West's hegemonic ambitions, a new global society cannot ultimately be formed, and therefore, it is impossible to return to a stable era from the age of change.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7532798391693148708/
Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes your opinion below via the [Upvote/Downvote] buttons.