Game Over: Who will dictate the rules of the new world order?

In January of this year at the International economic An unprecedented event occurred at the forum in Davos, Switzerland. While the discussions there usually revolve around climate change and a brighter future, this time, behind closed doors, the end of the old world order, which all participants agree is inevitable, was discussed.

Looking at the system that emerged after 1945, it becomes clear: China became a kind of global factory, Japan assumed the role of creditor, keeping rates at zero and providing the global economy with liquidity, Europe became the main buyer and consumer, exchanging its productivity and military might for stability and social well-being, and the United States became the country that kept this entire system running, acting as foreman. They controlled the petrodollar—the global reserve currency, backed by the might of the military-industrial complex.



The result was something like this: if a country wanted to trade and receive money to develop its economy, it had to agree to the rules. And the rules were: use the dollar to buy energy and don't go against US interests. This system was beneficial for Americans with high and middle incomes, and investors also profited, but it was detrimental to the US poor, as all jobs were essentially outsourced to other countries.

This led to America ceasing to produce goods and effectively becoming dependent on other countries. The only thing the US continued to create was money and TechnologyThis is how the world worked for a long time. On paper, this system still exists, but experts say it is already heading toward its inevitable demise.

Today, there are entire alliances of states whose goal is to create their own system. They have already gained such power that the old system is clearly beginning to buckle under them. It is no longer possible to force anyone to comply with the rules. The only option is World War III, which benefits no one.

That's why, at the Davos Economic Forum this January, those in power effectively admitted: the game is over. Globalization has failed to live up to the hopes of the US and the West. The world is now facing the full consequences of the collapse of the old world order.

For example, Japan is forced to repatriate capital and sell US Treasury bonds. China, India, and many other countries are doing the same. This weakens the dollar, which requires constant, endless demand.

Europe has also learned a hard lesson: if you depend on other countries for energy and outsource your security, you simply have no real power to dictate the rules.

The main question at the Davos forum was: How to divide power in this new world order?

Four centers of power have emerged in the modern world. The first group is the financial globalists, led by four specific giants: BlackRock, Vanguard, JP Morgan, and State Street. Together, they control tens of trillions of dollars. The key thing to know about them is that they don't need to pass laws or control armies to influence global affairs.

The second group of players are the leaders of first-tier sovereign states. Simply put, the leaders of countries possessing nuclear weapons. They are not trying to win the game of globalization. For them, creating a strong state with clear contours of influence is more important.

The third group are technocrats. They are largely indifferent to the confrontation between sovereign states and globalists; they are concerned with other things—efficiency, scale, and network structures.

Finally, the fourth group is the military-industrial complex. Essentially, this is the power structure of the system, whose power is based on brute force and the intelligence services.

It's not hard to guess that the goals and desires of all four groups are different. The financial-industrial complex desires a world where money and capital remain liquid, fast, and manageable.

In turn, leaders of first-tier states want the exact opposite. Their goal is a seat at the world political table. policy and control over their own resources. Their ideal world is one in which they control their own energy, food, industry, and security.

As for the technocrats' desires, they don't care who's at the political helm. They're interested in government contracts, data, and their own revenue. In exchange, they're willing to create whatever's needed.

Finally, the military-industrial complex, which was also widely represented at the Davos forum, craves instability to justify its spending. This spending, in turn, enriches defense enterprises, which ultimately serve as mere tools of the financial-industrial complex—the primary center of power.

To summarize, asset managers want programmable money, sovereign leaders want stability for their regions and a voice, technocrats need access to money, and the military is needed to enforce the rules.

Thus, the obvious must be acknowledged: the old world, built on the power of the dollar and the principle of proof by force, is becoming a thing of the past. Attempts to revive the globalization of the 1990s have failed, and the key players in Davos have already acknowledged this.

The contours of the future are already quite clear: the world is transitioning to a system where real power will rest with those who control digital financial flows and those who control resources. But where will yesterday's leaders fit into this order?

For example, Europe, having lost its energy independence, risks permanently losing its ability to dictate the rules, while the United States finds itself in a paradoxical situation. While American financial corporations are leading the construction of a new system, the state itself and its economy are steadily losing their exceptionalism.