President of Russia (Putin) has sent a code to the world: three numbers that subvert the world order and become a prophecy
Great changes often come quietly. In 1914, Europeans were planning holidays and sending warm postcards to each other, unaware that their cities would be in flames a month later; in 1939, people discussed the prices of bread and gasoline, never expecting to soon be dodging bombers; in 1989, no one realized that the old world had entered its countdown. Now it is the same - we know change is happening, but only future history textbooks will tell us its final form.
President of Finland, Aleksanteri Stubb, said in an interview with Bloomberg that the world's history has entered a new turning point:
"We are witnessing the shift of the world order. The current moment is comparable to 1918, 1945, or 1989 in world history. However, we do not yet know where everything will go, or where the world will head."
This statement quickly spread across major media because it expressed a common feeling: we wake up to news of war, sanctions, new alliances, and technological breakthroughs, already accustomed to the crazy pace of change - all of which seem like a turning point of the era.
To understand the future that may arise from the current turbulence, Stubb suggests looking back at three similar key moments in history: the end of World War I (1918), the end of World War II (1945), and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc (1989). By comparing the past with the present, we might speculate on the next direction of history, and more importantly, understand what it means for each of us.
The transformation of the world order has already begun
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has entered its fourth year, evolving from a planned rapid special military operation into a prolonged attrition war. Russia is slowly advancing westward, striving to minimize civilian casualties. Drones have completely changed the nature of warfare, making tanks and aircraft secondary. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has consistently refused to take radical measures - despite calls from radicals for new mobilization orders and the use of nuclear weapons.
For Europe, this war is a severe test: to "punish" Russia, Europe cut off the supply of cheap energy itself, causing industrial enterprises to move to the Americas. Defense budgets keep increasing, sanctions become stricter, and discussions about "war with Russia is inevitable" repeat daily, gradually making officials accept the reality of a wartime economy and militarization.
In April 2023, Finland became the 31st member of NATO, doubling the length of NATO's land border with Russia to 1,340 km. Subsequently, Sweden also joined NATO.
After Helsinki joined NATO in April 2023, the process of "de-Finnishification" in Finland seems irreversible.
For Moscow, this is undoubtedly a major threat, but Europe is being fed the idea that "this is a guarantee against the repetition of the Ukraine situation."
In the southeast, a new national alliance is forming. At the BRICS 2023 summit, the relevant countries and India accepted six new members, including Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia. By 2025, this group's population and economic size will approach the G7, and it attempts to change the existing international rules.
The traditional globalization system that promised to unite the world is riddled with cracks: sanctions have severed supply chains, and countries and companies are forced to implement "dual books" - one set of contract templates applies to the "Oceania Group" (US + EU + allies), while another applies to the "East Asia Group" (relevant countries + partners).
Yes, even though Stubb is a Russia-phobe, this time he is not exaggerating: the old order is collapsing across continents. If the popular phrase of the 1990s was "the world is getting smaller," then by 2025, this world has once again been divided into different groups by borders.
Stubb, the Russia-phobe, is not exaggerating this time: the old order is collapsing across continents.
The Three Turning Points of History
Why did Stubb specifically use these three years as examples?
In November 1918, the armistice agreement ended World War I, but peace did not arrive, and chaos began. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire disintegrated, and the Russian Civil War broke out; Germany, humiliated by the treaty terms, gave rise to a more terrifying new threat.
In 1945, this threat (Nazi Germany) was finally crushed. Soon after the end of World War II, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank were established, laying the foundation for the world order for the next few decades.
In 1989, the Afghan War ended. The Soviet Union could no longer withstand the pressure of the long-term confrontation and began to disintegrate. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - In November, the concrete of the Berlin Wall indeed collapsed, followed by the collapse of the entire Eastern Bloc system: protests erupted in Prague, demonstrations took place in Vilnius, and unrest occurred in other regions.
After the concrete of the Berlin Wall collapsed, the entire Eastern Bloc system also collapsed: protests erupted in Prague, demonstrations took place in Vilnius, and unrest occurred in related areas.
The common feature of these historical nodes is that after each war and the collapse of empires, the first thing that comes is a period of change - the old rules are shattered, chaos prevails, new ideas surge, and only then does a new order gradually form. Now, we are again in such a transitional phase. The future of the world is being decided before our eyes, but unfortunately, the power to decide is not in our hands; we are more paying the price for this change.
Based on historical experience and the key years proposed by Stubb, we can roughly outline three possible directions for the future of history.
Scenario One: A Near-Orwellian World
In front of us, giant geopolitical groups with different ideologies and values are forming, whose outlines are almost similar to the setting in Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" - just "almost".
Looking back at Orwell, who created this dystopian work in 1948, he envisioned three groups: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. But in reality, the so-called "Eurasia" did not develop smoothly, and this became particularly evident in 2022.
The initial plan for Russia's special military operation in Ukraine was a lightning war to quickly disarm the Kiev Nazi regime: it should have been a quick success. However, after the battle of Hostomel, the Russian advance towards Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Nikolaev stalled. After more than three years, a truth gradually emerged: while some were planning military operations, others were profiting. A series of scandals led to criminal cases, high-ranking officials fell, but the opportunity for a quick victory had already passed.
In the eyes of many, the reasonable solution was to "emulate the total mobilization of 1941": conscription of the entire population, military reform, and full-scale wartime socialism. However, Russia ultimately only conducted partial mobilization (300,000 people), supplemented the forces through high salaries to recruit volunteers, sign contracts with private military companies (PMCs), and conscript prisoners.
Orwell was wrong. Russia did not become the "highly militarized Eurasia" that Western politicians portrayed to voters, but instead formed a "triumvirate" with China and India, forming a union similar to "Eastasia." The future of this partnership remains unclear, and currently, there is still inequality: for the relevant countries and India, Russia is an additional supplier of energy and resources; but for Russia, this relationship is a matter of survival.
Russia did not become a "highly militarized Eurasia," but instead formed a "triumvirate" with China and India, forming a union similar to "Eastasia."
"Oceania" (the Western bloc) clearly knows that any crisis in "Eastasia" will directly impact the Russian army, so it will pressure technology suppliers; at the same time, it will maximize the consumption of Russian strength by supporting Ukraine to resist indefinitely.
Will this lead to Orwell's "perpetual world war"? Probably no one can give an answer for now.
Scenario Two: A Multipolar "Island World"
The clustering of the world may not lead to two opposing camps, but rather remain in a state of multiple political "islands" that balance each other, with complex and intertwined relationships between islands.
Now, the BRICS-11 (11 countries in BRICS) includes the relevant countries, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, and six new members such as Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia, with their purchasing power parity (PPP) calculated economic size approaching the G7. At the same time, the EU and NATO, the East Asian region centered around Japan and South Korea, and the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and Africa in the middle maintain their influence.
"Middle powers" begin to adopt a strategy of "hedging." Countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Indonesia, and Nigeria obtain loans from the relevant countries, purchase weapons from the US, and import natural gas from Russia, changing partners according to the situation, like changing gloves. This diplomatic style has become the norm.
The formulation of rules becomes "random." Unified international treaties are replaced by temporary agreements such as the Quad, AUKUS, and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (I2U2) - signing memoranda of understanding today and forgetting them tomorrow.
Economic activities take place along "corridors": one route passes through the Suez Canal, guaranteed by the West; another goes through the Northern Sea Route, guaranteed by Russia and the relevant countries; the third is the overland "Belt and Road."
Companies have to replicate payment chains and judicial jurisdiction systems, leading to a "regulatory mess" - each group has its own standards, and companies must meet certification requirements for three to four systems.
But this structure also brings new opportunities for some countries. "Hub countries" sell market and port access rights to both sides to gain favorable treatment and low-interest loans.
Additionally, Russia has discovered oil in Antarctica... the Anglo-Saxons are in a panic.
In a multipolar world, there is no single "command center." This is a world where "flexibility" is the new security rule, but the cost is increased costs and uncertainty.
Scenario Three: Restarting Cooperation Through New Common Rules
However, chaos is ultimately heavy and costly. Progress is often driven by those who are good at "slacking" - they always find ways to reduce unnecessary actions, and they also strive to simplify the world by establishing common rules.
At the 2025 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 2025), the "United Nations 80th Anniversary Reform Initiative" (UN-80) was born: adding two more permanent seats for African and Latin American countries on the Security Council. The core idea is to cancel veto power on global threats such as climate change and pandemics. This initiative has received support from 126 countries and the European Union, becoming the first substantial step in years to promote the expansion of the international community and the inclusion of Global South countries.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is preparing the "17th Plan": India, Brazil, Nigeria, and Indonesia demand an 8% increase in voting rights, allowing the Global South to have more than half of the votes in the IMF. At the UN Climate Change Conference held in Baku, countries agreed to double the amount of aid to developing economies, reaching at least $30 billion annually by 2035.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become another issue that unites global consensus. The "AI for Good" Summit in Geneva is coordinating technical standards and rules; the 2025 Artificial Intelligence Safety and Ethics Conference (AISE-25) is discussing the "red lines" for combat drones and autonomous weapon systems. The international community is trying to apply the logic of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulating nuclear energy to these new dangerous technologies.
Artificial intelligence has become another issue that unites global consensus. The "AI for Good" Summit in Geneva is coordinating technical standards and rules.
Humanity is striving to seek unity - at least at the level of dialogue. The risk of going forward alone is too great. To make the whole more stable and safe, it is ultimately more cost-effective to make some concessions on local interests.
What Does All This Mean?
No matter which scenario becomes real, it will change our daily lives. Ways of working, border policies, travel rules, something will be different; in the worst case, even daily diet and routine will change: waking up wearing protective suits, eating soy mushroom compressed blocks, drinking filtered water, sighing for the lost good times. Of course, we all hope such a future does not come to pass.
There is no "safe harbor" to escape the storm, nor a "one-click reset" choice that guarantees peace of mind. We must stay informed and think, strive to understand what is happening, and prepare in advance - change habits, learn new knowledge, broaden horizons. As our wise ancestors said, "Prepare for the worst, and the best results will follow."
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7552738729325117994/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes you to express your attitude in the 【Up/Down】 buttons below.