Image Source: Getty
Geopolitical Turbulence: The Questions of 2025
- As 2025 looms, global leaders find themselves inundated with a multitude of geopolitical dilemmas.
- A sprawling array of dynamics and queries will dictate the geopolitical landscape next year.
- Herein lies a quintet of pivotal questions awaiting resolution.
If 2024 was branded the year of elections, brace yourself: 2025 is inevitably the year of inquiry.
As we march into the new year, governments around the globe embark on fresh terms, urgently challenged to confront escalating economic, social, security, environmental, and technological crises. These daunting issues would test leadership endurance at any juncture, yet today’s contexts render them even more daunting amid a rapidly fracturing post-war international order.
Hence, leaders must pivot not only to tackle pressing issues but also to forge consensus essential for laying down a robust global framework—aiming to supplant rampant aggression and mounting economic instability with peace and prosperity.
So, what underlying dynamics should shape the decisions of these leaders?
Three Dynamics Influencing Leaders’ Actions in 2025
First and foremost, leaders must navigate an observable surge in seemingly irrational impulses emanating from their constituents and peers. Gone are the days when leaders could trust that domestic and global stakeholders would adhere to consistent interests; today, a polarized landscape fuels decisions that can baffle even the most astute observers. This disarray stems not only from entrenched divisions but also from the ever-growing shadow of misinformation.
The impact of geography on collective consciousness starkly manifests in divergent reactions to Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan.
Next, an unmistakable trend towards inconsistency is evident. External commitments are increasingly tethered to geographic positioning and domestic agendas. The stark reality of this inconsistency is laid bare in the varying responses to crises in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan. Acceptance of double standards regarding human rights has become disturbingly commonplace, overshadowing the ideal of universal values championed by the UN Charter.
Finally, we witness a proliferation of influential voices within the global discourse. Leaders are compelled to reckon with a diverse pool of stakeholders—from business magnates and social media influencers to emerging nations, many of whom reject the prevailing status quo. The post-war liberal consensus is now embattled from within as we witness domestic factions within historically stable states rising up against it.
With such dynamics weaving a complex tapestry, what pressing geopolitical inquiries await leaders in the coming year?
How can security be fortified within a splintering global order?
We find ourselves at a critical juncture, with global cooperation dwindling and conflict on the rise. Traditional governance bodies, like the WTO and UN, find themselves increasingly impotent, failing to catalyze a broad consensus or mediate disputes proactively. Emerging blocs and nations across the Global South have yet to clarify their roles—will they serve as stabilizing forces countering a waning West-led security framework, or will they merely exacerbate disruptions? A delicate balancing act falls squarely on Beijing’s shoulders, given its engagement in multiple emerging alignments, including the Global Security Initiative and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Traditional leaders and institutions, such as the WTO and UN, have recently proved ineffective in delivering broad global consensus, or serving as a platform to resolve disputes.
The two most contentious conflicts of 2024—Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas clash—are rooted in deep-seated grievances. The sudden escalation of these issues signals a global security landscape too fragmented for effective maintenance or negotiation of peace.
Leaders are hence compelled to ponder:Â In what ways can we bridge divides and avert further conflict? Can power limitations be accepted in pursuit of peace-making? What minimal areas of agreement might catalyze progress towards thwarting regressive actions?
How is sovereignty redefined in today’s geo-political landscape?
The vision of a rules-based order, painstakingly nurtured since 1945, now appears more elusive than ever. Without shared norms, robust institutions, and an unwavering commitment to international law, crafting a stable, peaceful environment remains a Sisyphean task. Nevertheless, proponents of this order are beginning to recognize that the stability and role of national political frameworks are critical for many nations. Violations of sovereignty manifest not only through military incursions but also via economic manipulations, interference in political systems, and threats to market access—all of which can contravene the UN Charter.
Without shared norms, strong institutions, and a commitment to international law, it is difficult to shape a stable, peaceful environment.
Historically, the ceding of some sovereignty to global governance was deemed essential for fostering a cohesive global order. Yet, illiberal voices have long argued for a sovereignty-centric approach as the cornerstone of international relations. Intriguingly, even staunch defenders of a global order now acknowledge that rules cannot effectively be established in a world where state sovereignty is disrespected. After all, without powerful states that represent their populations and safeguard their rights, how can any semblance of a rules-based order hope to thrive?
Thus, in 2025, the critical query emerges:Â Can the revitalization of state independence march in tandem with the reinforcement of transnational frameworks that assure security for their citizens?
A Glimpse into the Future
As we step into 2025, leaders globally must grapple with the answers to these five pressing questions. While uniformity in responses is not required, discordance could intensify the global challenges at hand. In a world fraught with irrationality, inconsistency, and an abundance of divergent perspectives, the quest for a fragile consensus becomes more crucial than ever.
