Title: The Future of the Rules-Based International Order
Approx. Reading Time: 8 minutes
Author: Sir Adam Thomson
Is the rules-based international order (RBIO) of the last 80 years dead? It depends which RBIO we mean, argues Sir Adam Thomson. The liberal RBIO is ailing and the American RBIO is in even worse shape. However, the international community’s RBIO—based on rules in pursuit of global common goods—is very much alive, though damaged and under threat. Over the next 20 years—absent civilisation-ending war or disease—the RBIO should survive, evolve to be less American and more law-based, and in most domains will continue to function and, in many, thrive.
Read EssayA severe El Niño, intensified by climate change, promises to further destabilise a world already beset by disrupted supply chains, volatile geopolitics and social dislocation. The implications for climate politics are particularly significant, with El Niño-driven instability creating both opportunities to reinforce action and risks of derailment. Immediate action is needed to ensure the balance of outcomes tilts in a productive direction.
The likelihood of the UK rejoining the EU could hinge on electoral reform. A move to a more proportionally representative electoral system under a new Labour leader would align the country’s politics more closely with the electorate’s views. Pro-EU parties would command a clear and stable majority in Parliament and face little political risk in advocating rejoining the EU. By consistently making the case for membership, they could further strengthen public support.
The “power of asymmetry” is reshaping modern warfare. Weaker or smaller actors can turn disadvantage into leverage, making victory harder for dominant powers. In Ukraine and Iran drones, resilience and chokepoints offset superior military strength, producing stalemate or strategic constraint. The likely outcomes are settlements resembling the Korean War in Ukraine and the Vietnam War in Iran. Across both conflicts, power is shifting from size to the ability to convert imbalance into leverage.
The dominant financial narrative is that climate threats, wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and hybrid conflicts in cyberspace are containable and that the system is resilient—states can absorb shocks, backstop failures and come to the rescue where required. The evidence tells a more fragmented, volatile story.
Title: The Middle East War and the Everything Crisis
Approx. Reading Time: 9 minutes
Author: Laurie Laybourn
The US-Israel war on Iran has triggered a systemic commodity shock, overturning expectations of stability and pushing some prices beyond 2022 peaks. Disruptions to oil, gas, fertilisers and critical inputs are cascading through energy, food, finance and technology systems. Laurie Laybourn argues the result is an “everything crisis” that exposes the risks of deep fossil-fuel dependence. As impacts spread globally—from food insecurity to risks in AI infrastructure—the shock is accelerating the shift toward renewables and resilience.
Read EssayTitle: War of the Worlds
Approx. Reading Time: 11 minutes
Author: Peter Kingsley
A patchwork of inconsistent and often contradictory narratives about the war in the Middle East fails to capture the emerging reality: this is a systemic conflict. The main actors are deeply interconnected and exposed to existential risks, yet they have failed to anticipate the consequences of the US and Israel’s decision to go to war. They are, in effect, sleepwalking—without a map, a compass, or direction. As Peter Kingsley argues, they also lack a shared understanding of the fragile interdependencies linking global security, AI-driven warfare, energy, finance, insurance and supply chains. The conditions are set for cascading conflicts, if not a wider global war and deep economic crisis.
Read EssayTitle: Can Trump “Fix” the Midterms?
Approx. Reading Time: 9 minutes
Author: Mat Burrows
With slim congressional majorities and low approval ratings, Trump risks losing control in the midterms, paralysing his administration. Mat Burrows examines whether Republicans could use security forces—National Guard deployments, ICE operations, or even the Insurrection Act—to deter Democrats from voting; whether Republican gerrymandering of electoral districts will be offset by equivalent Democratic efforts; and the likelihood of Republicans refusing to accept the results. He concludes that any attempt to forcibly change the electoral outcome would split the country and likely trigger civil conflict.
Read EssayTitle: Trump, Greenland, Transatlantic Relations and Geostrategy
Approx. Reading Time: 9 minutes
Author: Sir Adam Thomson
Trump’s tariff and military threats over Greenland crossed a line for Europeans, and such brinkmanship will recur. Sir Adam Thomson argues that the episode was not severe or prolonged enough to force rupture or decoupling, but will accelerate European de-risking from the United States as far as it can militarily, in trade, and in other domains while still hoping and working for better from Washington. Russia and China benefit from a weakening of the West, but uncertainty about how the US would react to their territorial aspirations tempers their advantage.
Read EssayThe relative decline in US global power has largely reflected the rise of other countries, particularly China, but increasingly also stems from domestic factors, including political dysfunction and growing protectionism. The centrality of the dollar and military superiority make full replacement by another power unlikely, even if US dominance fades across other dimensions. However, unless internal weaknesses are reversed, US hold on these critical strengths will loosen.
The defeat of Viktor Orban—long considered a role model for other extremist politicians, and a thorn in the EU’s side when it came to confronting Russia—is the biggest victory yet in what many have noted is a slow toppling of populist figureheads across Europe. Is this just a blip, or are we seeing a final retreat of the populist wave? What can these results teach us about how to defeat illiberal forces?
The US–Israeli attack on Iran disadvantages Ukraine while offering short-term relief to Russia’s budget, but it has not yet altered battlefield or negotiation dynamics. Its significance lies in second-order effects: pressure on the supply of air defence systems, especially anti-ballistic missiles, and the economic consequences of higher oil, gas, and fertiliser prices. The longer and more disruptive the conflict—particularly for Gulf energy production and European economies, or through deeper US involvement—the more adverse the implications for Ukraine.
The US president will find it difficult to extricate himself from the crisis he has set in motion. The world now faces an inflation shock and a blow to an already fragile global economy. Crucially, major supply shocks tend to generate far-reaching consequences across the short, medium, and long term—many of them unforeseen. Risks do not remain contained but interact, reinforce, and amplify one another; shocks can cascade into systemic failure.
Climate and geopolitical shocks are exposing a persistent failure to anticipate and build resilience into modern economies. As global warming accelerates—potentially reaching 0.35°C per decade—impacts are arriving faster and more severely than expected. With further shocks looming, including a strong El Niño, risks are intensifying. Yet responses are emerging—notably distributed renewables, which offer a ‘triple win’ by strengthening energy security, reducing emissions and enhancing resilience in an uncertain world.
Governments are beginning to treat the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) as a security risk rather than a scientific concern. Iceland’s designation of AMOC as a security issue reflects research indicating tipping points may be closer and more dangerous than assumed. Though welcome, responses remain insufficient. Decision-relevant risk analysis, faster decarbonisation, contingency planning and coordinated international action are urgently needed to manage what is becoming one of the defining systemic risks of the climate era.
It is a truism that world leaders dominate information wars. They set agendas, frame media coverage and exert control and power through performative narratives and nostalgia. Above all, they impose their imagined futures on the world. This is nothing new. Yet when political self-interest, fantasies and myth lose contact with reality there is only one possible outcome: catastrophe. Reality bites back. History tells us that catastrophe can be the catalyst of renewal. The next year, particularly in the US, will test that theory.
There is a steepening trade-off between productivity growth and economic security as the taboo on territorial acquisition breaks down and countries increasingly weaponise control over commodities, technology and digital infrastructure. Interdependence is no longer a risk-free route to rising productivity. The challenge of strengthening security while minimising the damage to productivity is most acute for those countries that embraced globalisation most deeply and possess few natural resources, notably in Europe.
Davos was dominated by Trump, who arrived with a huge delegation and set the tone. US business leaders were cautious, avoiding overt criticism, while the rest of the world appeared increasingly at a loss over how to deal with a deeply unstable and erratic Washington. As Mark Carney argued, a new order is needed—but the obstacles are formidable. Weak growth, disruptive technological change, widening inequality and accelerating climate risks all demand greater global cooperation at precisely the moment it is least likely to materialise.
Investor sentiment toward US equities remains broadly optimistic, despite mounting concerns. Bears warn that markets may be complacent, while bulls argue that structural change, productivity gains and resilient growth justify higher valuations. The difficulty is that many downside risks are hard to quantify or time. As history shows, genuine economic transformations can still give rise to market excess, leaving investors exposed and making the right moment to exit notoriously hard to judge.
Climate and environmental disruption are now material threats to our collective security, yet official government risk assessments have lagged behind reality. A newly released UK government assessment marks a major shift, recognising nature as foundational to security. Yet the politics surrounding its delayed and partial release reveal a persistent reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths. This “delayed disclosure trap” risks weakening resilience precisely when honesty and preparedness are most urgently needed.
Wars today rarely end in decisive military victory, and the conflict in Ukraine is unlikely to be an exception. If it is resolved at all, it will be through diplomacy rather than force. Indeed, despite acute tensions between Europe and both Russia and the US, the odds of a diplomatic outcome are increasing. The terms of any agreement could profoundly shape Europe’s future and have significant geopolitical consequences.
Although the decline of natural ecosystems continues, there are an increasing number of positive stories of restored habitats and species in many regions around the world. If social movements gain momentum, forcing governments to fulfil their pledges and put in place the necessary policies, legislation and funding, we could see, by 2050, ecosystems restored, plants and animals flourishing again, and humans living in harmony with nature.
US stock-market capitalisation now stands at around $70 trillion, or 225 percent of GDP and over 60 percent of global equity value. A host of factors could trigger a major correction, tipping the country’s economy into recession. The world’s unusually heavy exposure to US equities means any downturn would be transmitted worldwide, underscoring the risks of depending too heavily on a single country’s economic cycle and politics.
Beneath the Commission’s optimistic forecasts lies a stark reality: Europe’s economic core is weakening. Germany remains stuck in stagnation, France faces deepening fiscal and political strain, and Europe’s industrial base faces an increasingly existential challenge from Chinese competition. A sense of decline now prevails, yet the reforms needed to restore competitiveness are stalled by political resistance and an EU governance system far too slow for the scale of the challenge.
What emergencies? Why do world leaders fail to recognise and act on warnings of existential risk in everything from climate and biosphere failure to runaway artificial intelligence and the collapse of the world order? Why do the stories so often end with ‘too little, too late’? Time to face reality and frame early warning as inter-systemic threats and runaway, cascading failure.
