The world has become more complex, multidimensional, and interconnected. The matrix needed to map the forces at play and calculate necessary actions either does not exist or is too complex for practical application. This is precisely why we should not expect AI to help us achieve an ideal world, writes Valdai Club Chairman Andrey Bystritskiy.
There is a widespread notion that historical centuries do not align with their calendar counterparts. According to this view, the “long 19th century” began with the French Revolution in 1789 and concluded only with the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. This was followed by a “short 20th century,” which many believe ended with the collapse of the socialist system and the USSR in 1991 – marking the true start of the 21st century. Frankly, I find this speculative chronology no more convincing than the so-called “new chronology.” If we follow this logic, one could argue that the 21st century is only just beginning.
Of course, discussions about epochal change are inherently abstract; nothing emerges fully formed in a single day. New realities mature gradually, often imperceptibly, until we suddenly recognize them as established forms.
The crucial question today is whether we are truly witnessing the emergence of these new 21st-century forms. To what extent have they been defined? And are they stable?
It seems that we can discern some things with a certain degree of certainty.
First of all, the old “liberal order”, supported mainly by Western countries, has weakened greatly and has actually ceased to function even where it first appeared – in the Western countries themselves. The radical weakening of this “order” occurred, first of all, due to the systemic weakening of Western elites. This is probably a natural historical process, but it’s more than that. The main reason is that the liberal elites have failed to cope with the challenge both morally and intellectually. One of the foundations of the liberal order is the broad application, respectively, of liberal values, the radical acceleration of the emancipation of the individual, and a critical revision of the foundations of culture, with the aim of eliminating any “inequality” between different social (and any other) groups.
The conductors of this liberal policy gradually, starting from the 1950s and 1960s, became a very specific layer, consisting of a mixture of functionaries of government apparatuses, parties, public organisations, the media public and numerous members of the intelligentsia, concentrated in universities, all kinds of NGOs, and various social movements, from trade unions to environmentalists. As a result, first of all in Europe (in the USA to a lesser extent) a new ruling class was actually formed. It was educated in universities, the dominant ideology of which has always been left-wing, with a strong flavour of neo-Marxism and an extremely bizarre understanding of anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism. It turned out that the “rebels” of 1968 were transformed into those who began to govern Western Europe and, accordingly, reproduce their own kind for sustainable governance. By the way, a wonderful example of what they represented and, to some extent, continue to represent, is easier to find not in the West (there were and are many restraining factors there), but in the East. Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) and Ieng Sary in Cambodia demonstrated the results of the “politics of the possible” in the most convincing way (the name Pol Pot is probably taken from the French politique potentielle).
In Europe, of course, it did not come to such atrocities. However, a feeling of repressive permissiveness arose. While the Soviet Union existed, one still had to control oneself. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the restrictive mechanisms weakened. The idea of establishing liberal democracies everywhere took hold of the minds of Western elites. Then it turned out that there was not enough money for all the tricks. The fact is that one of the features of the new ruling class in Europe and in the USA (albeit not to such a degree) is that they are absolutely alien to the spirit of free enterprise, but not at all alien to amazing greed. So, there are a lot in them that are downright anti-capitalist, a kind of ostentatious egalitarianism. As a result of exorbitant and, most importantly, irritating and demonstratively dishonest spending, the gap between the ruling elites and, let’s say, ordinary workers and, at the same time, a significant part of big business has gradually begun to grow. There is still no recipe for overcoming this split. The ruling groups are forced in many cases to resort to direct manipulation, pressure and even repression. The triumph of liberal values has been extremely compromised in Western Europe itself.
The ambiguity of the “liberal values” as implemented by the West has become even more obvious in its relations with the countries of the so-called Global South. The inability to hide its feeling of superiority, the extreme callousness in understanding what politicians in other countries are saying, and its straightforward insistence have effectively blocked the path to the spread of the current version of liberal values.
This is clearly visible in the permanent attempts to divide the world into black and white: on one side, the world of democracy and “people with bright faces,” and on the other, the world of autocrats and notorious totalitarian villains. However, the concepts of “democracy” and “autocracy” are difficult to apply to the modern world. It would be more correct to talk about different types of “social organisation” in certain states. This does not mean complete relativism or a refusal to distinguish between good and evil, but simply requires intellectual courage and impartiality – which, unfortunately, is a problem.
In general, in recent years, it has become clear that the notorious old “liberal order” has failed. The countries that support it are on the path of self-isolation; they have failed to integrate the rest of the world into the “liberal value system.” The world is becoming increasingly divided due to the dogmatic desire of Western politicians to maintain their dominance everywhere. At the same time, the picture of the world in which the aforementioned politicians live and act is clearly borrowed from George Lucas’s Star Wars – specifically, The Empire Strikes Back.
However, the problems are not limited to foreign policy; domestic policy is no better. The genuine emancipation of the individual has been sacrificed to the interests of public opinion manipulators, and a pluralism of cultures has been replaced by directive management. As a result of the actions of modern Western liberals, such a thing as freedom has actually become extremely limited, and in some places even completely abolished. This, by the way, is the number one liberal value. At the same time, the idea of the fundamental equality of people has been abolished. In general, the ruling Western elites have managed to achieve something absolutely amazing. However, in fairness, we should note that they have found helpers.
Of course, the above is not an exhaustive description of what is happening, but the fact remains that the world has changed radically and we need to learn to live in it in a new way. There is no time to learn, just as there are no teachers. We are already here, in a new reality. This reality is complex, although some things can already be discerned.
In addition to the aforementioned collapse of the Western-centric model, something else is obvious.
The world, of course, has become more complex. It has more dimensions, and it is extremely interconnected. The matrix with which one could record the forces acting in the world and then calculate the necessary actions either does not exist at all, or is so complex that it is unsuitable for practical use. By the way, this is precisely why one should not expect any help from AI in achieving an ideal world.
So states - and these are the main actors in the modern world - act with great caution. Leaders, as a rule, understand that their countries do not have the resources for any radical change in the world. The same Western elites want to somehow fence themselves off from the outside world, weaken independent countries, and improve their positions in the global competitive struggle. It is impossible to return to some previous Pax Americana. It is clear that there are few resources, and that allies are not so reliable. They have to be cautious and snap back, in general, put on a good face for a bad game.
The countries of the Global South are mostly cautious. They understand, of course, that their forces are growing and that their capabilities are increasing, but, as we know, the millstones of history grind slowly. Haste is dangerous, although sometimes procrastination is like death. In general, it is necessary to weigh every step in a world that, again, is becoming increasingly complex and increasingly interconnected. The number of factors that must be taken into account when planning and making decisions is also growing.
It is now clear, for example, that the presence of effective armed forces and everything that goes with them is extremely necessary, and this is not subject to discussion. It is unlikely that the leadership of Qatar is in a state of happy euphoria and delight and takes the explosions in Doha for celebratory fireworks. Almost certainly they are thinking about how to make sure that the next attempt by Israel to bomb the capital would cost the aggressor dearly. I believe that many other countries are having similar thoughts. Another problem is that each country has to rely mainly on itself. If large countries have comparatively many opportunities here, then small ones do not have such resources. Consequently, this will also affect the evolution of weapons: something very effective and not very expensive will be needed. It is scary to even think about where we can go when searching in this area.
I have already spoken and written many times about growing international interdependence and the weakness of regulatory mechanisms. This concerns not only security, but also such critically important things such as climate regulation, for example. Or the circulation of funds. We see that almost everything can be turned into a means of pressure in order to coerce a competitor or simply an independent player. The United States, without any hesitation, imposes sanctions - in the form of tariffs - against countries that recently were friendly. The cases of India and Brazil are extremely indicative. And it is not a matter that the real consequences of these sanctions still need to be carefully analysed. Something else is important here - everything can be weaponized, and the predictability of the world is falling critically. Accordingly, everyone here is thinking hard about how to protect themselves.
The risk and danger of the achievements of modern thought cannot be overestimated. New technologies, primarily in the field of biology, IT and communications, are most decisively changing our understanding of how to live and act in the modern world. Volumes have already been written about new technologies; they cannot be described in a short article.
I will only note that the success of a country in the field of biology, IT and communications is critically important for its development and survival. Unsuccessful countries can lose fatally. They will most likely face extinction as independent entities.
It is difficult to imagine that anyone will be able to survive inequality in terms of life expectancy where some live two or three times longer (in the literal sense of the word), or the fantastic intellectual superiority of those who have mastered and are developing AI, or complete dominance in the information and communications sphere. In all these cases, the one who owns the technology will create the world in his own way. The one who does not own it will be absorbed. Perhaps humanity has already experienced something similar. Many thousands of years ago, our ancestors, the Cro-Magnons, somehow displaced another type of people - the Neanderthals. By the way, it is not exactly known how: there are traces of cannibalism and traces of Neanderthal genes in us. There were all sorts of things there, apparently. Hardly anyone today wants to share the fate of the Neanderthals and cede his land to more advanced competitors.
There are more than enough questions about what the world will be like tomorrow. Many of them will be discussed at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, titled “The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use” in Sochi from September 29 to October 2, 2025.
