On the eve of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, June 2, 2026, the Valdai Discussion Club held an expert dialogue—a format that has become a tradition for the Club. This year’s topic: “New World—Rules of Survival: Limits of Power and Space for Cooperation.”
Among the many contours of the emerging world sketched by Valdai experts, several deserve particular attention.
First, rising turbulence. It will be felt at both the geopolitical and economic levels, reflecting a deep transition from attempts at unipolar dominance toward an as yet unformed multipolar order. Several Valdai experts noted that unipolarity is already history, but a truly multipolar world has not yet arrived. This interregnum carries high uncertainty, the risk of forks and bifurcations in global politics, and a marked lack of deterministic development.
This uncertainty will determine the actions of key global actors in the medium term. It will significantly stimulate their focus on struggle (both for the preservation of the old order, on the one hand, and for the achievement of a new one, on the other). The Thucydides Trap, recently recalled by Xi Jinping, will almost certainly continue to operate, despite rationalizing attempts to curb its influence. This understanding of the virtual inevitability of struggle and, therefore, the focus on struggle (a kind of temptation to struggle) will lead to increased turbulence in the future world.
Second, the changing nature of warfare—in the present and future—demands a fundamental rethink of military strategy. This is evident not only in the growing impact of unmanned technologies (already in the air and at sea, soon on land) on combat, but also in the asymmetry of responses. Take the US Iran conflict: Valdai experts concluded that under altered conditions, a great power can no longer defeat a medium power that, by traditional military logic, is far weaker—at least not quickly or bloodlessly.
This transformation is already reshaping the behaviour of both great and medium powers in future conflicts. It may lead some medium powers to act more provocatively, while also creating a Thucydides like trap for great powers: the sense that one must fight now, because waiting will only make things worse. All of this amplifies the first trend—rising turbulence.
Third, the challenge of artificial intelligence. AI is growing smarter and more powerful not just year by year, but month by month, almost day by day. Without question, AI can and should serve humanity and the planet. Yet for now, its two main applications are war and the falsification of student theses. The first deepens the transformation of warfare. The second may soon lead mass level human intelligence to become weaker than AI—and almost certainly fall under its influence. After that, we can either rewatch Spielberg’s AI or conjure up our own dark visions.
The interaction between the human “interface” and AI introduces yet another layer of uncertainty and turbulence. One manifestation is so called “technofeudalism”: the growing power of corporations and their executives who promote AI. Recently, we have seen more and more statements, lectures, and interviews in which these leaders speak less about technology than about their vision for future society and civilisation. And because some of these executives harbour rather peculiar notions of morality and self restraint, the term “technofascism” has emerged alongside “technofeudalism.”
Another dimension of human AI interaction is geopolitical. Several non Western countries are now pursuing strategies for sovereign control over AI. If those strategies are even admitted as realisable, they could produce an entirely new form of warfare: a war between rival sovereign AIs. Not even Spielberg scripted that.
Fourth, and perhaps most personal—fear. Fear of the future. Geopolitical, economic, technological, and everyday—at the level of families and households. Valdai experts observed that this fear, as an emotional response to current events, can become overwhelming. Such fear, first, feeds turbulence in a vicious spiral, and second, erodes faith in progress—the Enlightenment faith that the future will be better. That core belief is being replaced by its opposite: the future will only get worse. Even worse. On the technological side, this leads to technofascism. On the social side, the images ahead are often bleak.
So how does one survive in this new world? Are there any rules of survival?
Regarding the human interface, where fear is the dominant emotion, the most important rule is emotional management—control over one’s emotions and rationalisation of behaviour. This holds for individuals, for societies, and above all for political and corporate leaders who shape the future. After all, even the notorious Thucydides Trap is born of fear.
But this concerns only the human interface—and let us be honest: the rule of rationalising political behaviour is unlikely to be followed. As for AI, at least for now, it has no emotions—only simulacra, calculated from databases and large language models to satisfy (for now) human consumers. AI knows no fear. That is good. But in geopolitical struggle, it is also very bad.
Yet in that same Spielberg film, at least one robot child began to feel real human emotions. So perhaps not everything is lost.
