Is strategy possible in a world where “black swans” fly in from all directions? In a sense, yes. After all, strategy is not only about choosing a direction and accumulating resources, but also about the ability to adapt and set priorities amid rapidly changing conditions. It is impossible to foresee everything; tactical reactions are a natural choice. The task is to ensure that tactics are strategically verified.
What approaches to planning are effective in an era of change? What tools and technologies will provide an advantage in the new world order? How are societies transformed? These and other questions were the focus of the participants of the round table titled “Homo Perplexus: How to Stop Fearing and Learn to Love Change,” which the Valdai Discussion Club held on June 17 in St. Petersburg on the eve of SPIEF-2025. Andrey Bystritskiy, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club, noted in his opening remarks, the source of every change is an individual human being. He is the engine of history and the creator of the future, and at the same time the main connecting link.
The round table consisted of three sessions: the first was devoted to developing strategies amid conditions of uncertainty, the second to problems associated with the development of artificial intelligence (AI), and the third to prospects for creating social harmony.
The moderator of the sessions Fyodor Lukyanov, Research Director of the Valdai Club Foundation, noted that in the modern world, the boundaries between spheres of activity are intertwined and qualitative changes are taking place in each of these spheres. If you put all this together, you get the very same "confusion" that is the title of the Valdai Club round table. So far, no one has figured out how to determine the resultant of all these new processes. Artificial intelligence is also not yet able to calculate the picture of the world, so the participants of the sessions will have to look for answers themselves, counting on natural intelligence.
Valdai Club shares with readers some of the conclusions of Valdai Club experts.
The times when changes gave rise to hopes for the best seem to have passed, stated the participants of the first session. Many are afraid of growing uncertainty. This is partly objective, and partly depends on human perception: it is easier to lose than to win.
The departure of the unipolar world is a fait accompli. New economic alliances are being formed without the participation of the United States and Great Britain. An important, but still unresolved issue is the departure from the US dollar as an instrument for use in international financial settlements. In addition, the cryptocurrency sphere requires the development of a global consensus.
The development of technology, and especially artificial intelligence, increases transparency at all levels, even globally. It is unusual for states to live with such transparency; on the other hand, a lack of transparency becomes a reason for suspicion and mistrust. More and more countries are beginning to view conflicts through the prism of economics and the possibility of inflicting maximum damage on the enemy with minimal costs to themselves. This causes international law to malfunction. Global problems are recognised, but there is no will to solve them. The main focus among nations is on minimising the impact of global problems on themselves.
The principle of the inviolability of borders is eroded, and any offensive actions are justified by the goals of self-defence, regardless of the scale of possible consequences. Even nuclear infrastructure facilities are being hit by military strikes, which seemed unthinkable just a couple of decades ago. Perhaps this is facilitated by the dissipation of the memory of past man-made disasters. Even after the cessation of hostilities, conflicts continue to smoulder for many years, periodically flaring up with renewed vigour.
Technologies work like a magnifying glass: they amplify both good and bad trends. Artificial intelligence is changing everything from writing texts and analysing data to decision-making and conducting military operations. Its emergence and implementation has provided an advantage comparable to the invention of firearms, when the superiority in physical strength of an individual was reduced to almost zero.
In such a confrontation, it becomes dangerous to rely only on foreign AI models that are still in the public domain, noted participants at the second session of the round table. This is precisely true now, because in the foreseeable future, especially in the event of increased competition, access to them will be limited, and may even be completely closed off.
The development of AI requires not only "software", qualified programmers, and "hardware", but also access to energy. These factors are holding back the explosive growth of AI. Only a few countries have the necessary resources in the required volumes. In the future, the issue of the nationality of AI (national mentality) and its sovereignty will certainly arise. All this will only exacerbate competition and inequality.
Now, artificial intelligence can correctly be called an “artificial ability to reason intelligently”, since AI does not have self-awareness and its prospects for reaching a fundamentally new level of cognition are still vague. However, it is safe to say that the next stage will be the emergence of “intelligent” robots, like those in science fiction.
As for inequality between countries, it should be noted that AI implementation models may differ in labour-surplus and labour-deficit countries. The demographic structure affects the choice of areas for AI implementation.
A new form of digital colonialism is emerging - extracting rent from other countries' data. For example, in India, local specialists train AI models, but Western corporations receive the main profit, leaving the country with the role of a “digital raw materials appendage”.
Moreover, as mobile devices become widespread and the Internet of Things is introduced, there is increasing talk about the formation of so-called surveillance capitalism, when corporations collect and systematise data on the population. This opens up opportunities for managing the behaviour of social groups. If AI is used in bad faith, it can even lead to dehumanisation and worsening inequality.
The participants of the third session agreed that the described trends necessitate the search for new models of social sustainability and social harmony, the transformation of society. Social harmony is becoming a matter of national security. There is less predetermination in the methods of ensuring social sustainability; there is more variability and internal tension.
It is necessary to maintain the satisfaction of the middle class, and ideas about rejecting the universality and linearity of social development and recognising the existence of various culturally conditioned models are increasingly heard. Social groups are emerging whose position in society is determined not only by their purchasing power, but also by their contribution to the security of this society.
Traditional models of social sustainability are bursting at the seams;they are unable to withstand new challenges. A new balance between technological, economic and social development is needed. The emerging tension fuels the rise of populist politicians and intensifies attempts to replace internal problems with foreign policy activity. Here the answer to the challenges can be the platform economy and platform employment, which expand the boundaries of national labour markets, that is, they provide opportunities for everyone.
To reduce risks and manage uncertainty, four principles of the social state were proposed back in the 20th century: solidarity, justice, responsibility and security.
Solidarity is what makes society a society. It is willingness to sacrifice something for the common good.
Justice guarantees the recognition of merits and support for weak groups. Mechanisms for achieving justice can be different; AI and biomodification can play a role.
Responsibility is seen as a duty not only to society, but also to future generations.
Security in this paradigm is nothing more than the ability to achieve goals in an unpredictable and turbulent world.
The main task of the social state is to achieve such social development, which is based on the principles of social justice, universal solidarity and mutual responsibility enshrined in law. To what extent these principles are feasible, effective and do not contradict each other remains an open question. The modern economic model, being the foundation of the social structure, is of a consumer rather than a creative nature. The innate human instinct for knowledge is suppressed. But if this need is realised and most people become creative and give up overconsumption, the economy will face a crisis.
But there is a way out. An economic model is needed that would not turn people into consumers. The implementation of such changes requires a deep cultural transformation and a gradual rejection of ingrained habits. This process will inevitably be complex and lengthy, since it involves a revision of established behaviour patterns and value systems. Robots will help free people from routine work and give them time for creativity. In this process, we should not miss the intended goal and not exchange universal prosperity for dominance.
The Valdai Club round table titled “Homo Perplexus: How to Stop Fearing and Learn to Love Change,” was the first part of a broad discussion conceived by the organizers about the origins and methods of ensuring security in the modern world – through the perception of an individual. The second part – about how individual states can ensure internal stability as the main prerequisite for their own security – was discussed the following day during a session of the Valdai Club at the SPIEF-2025.
