The Global Triumvirate | ADELAJA'S - "TRANSC-GEOPOLITICS"

SOTI

CANDICE ADELAJA

Co-Founder iGURU! Teaching Systems - Designer,

Technical -

& Archivist

ADE

ADELAJA

Co-Founder - Architect & Designer of iGURU! Teaching Systems -

& Archivist

Science Of The Immortals

THE GLOBAL TRIUMVIRATE

Xi Jinping - Vladimir Putin - Donald Trump

INTRODUCTION

Developments in Global Politics, seem to suggest that we are now moving into an era of "great power - global politics" - with an emphasis on the "power" - "skill" and "acumen" - of individual great leaders - statesmen and women. We can currently see forming, a potential "Global Triumvirate" - in the form of the three leaders Xi Jinping (China) - Vladimir Putin (Russia) - Donald J. Trump (US).

The issue is of particular interest in relation to President Donald J. Trump, given his so called transactional style of Global Diplomacy - we can see this in action - in relation to his attempts to negotiate a ceasefire and peace deal in Ukraine. In relation to his negotiating strategy and style - with the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin - old alliances and allies, principally in Europe - appear to have been brushed aside - and the victim of aggression, Ukraine - has been dealt with unsympathetically by President Donald J. Trump. Some would go as far, as to call it a betrayal, not just of Ukraine, but of Europe and The West in general. In relation to China - Xi's dominance of Asia, is unquestioned and Russia's thirst to re-establish dominance in Europe following the collapse of the old Soviet Union (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) - remains undiminished. Is it possible therefore, that these three leaders - Autocrats within their own national jurisdictions - will consolidate sufficient power to so dominate Global Politics, as to substitute themselves - for the "great powers" of the past, creating stability through the establishment of a personal, though informal - "Global Triumvirate."

Each of these leaders has significantly shaped modern global dynamics, especially in terms of economic policy, military expansion, and geopolitical alliances. Here’s a detailed overview of each, along with references for further reading:

Xi Jinping

Xi Jinping is the paramount leader of China, holding multiple roles as General Secretary of the Communist Party, President of the People's Republic of China, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission. Since rising to prominence in 2012, Xi has consolidated power to a level not seen since Mao Zedong, implementing sweeping reforms across China's military, economy, and political landscape. Domestically, he initiated anti-corruption campaigns to secure loyalty and eliminate dissent within the Communist Party, while also cracking down on human rights in regions like Hong Kong and Xinjiang. On the international stage, Xi promotes China's interests through the Belt and Road Initiative, which invests in infrastructure and fosters political influence worldwide, and has overseen an increasingly assertive foreign policy, especially in the South China Sea.

For more on Xi Jinping's leadership and policies, you can read - Britannica’s entry on Xi Jinping.

Vladimir Putin

As the long-serving President of Russia (with a brief period as Prime Minister) - Vladimir Putin has wielded significant influence over Russian and global politics since 1999. Known for his "strongman image" - Putin has reasserted Russia's power on the world stage, from the annexation of Crimea in 2014, to his support of the Assad regime in Syria. Domestically, he has strengthened centralised power with tight control over media and political opposition. Under Putin, Russia has shifted towards a more nationalist, militarised stance, focusing on modernization of the armed forces and cyber capabilities. His strategic alliances with countries opposed to Western influence and recent actions in Ukraine, have led to increased tensions and sanctions - Britannica’s entry on Vladimir Putin.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump, the 45th and now 47th President of the United States, is known for his controversial and unconventional approach to both domestic and foreign policy. Originally a real estate developer and television personality, Trump transitioned into politics in 2016 with a populist message, advocating for policies like reducing immigration, renegotiating trade deals, and prioritising American interests over global cooperation. His presidency from 2017 to 2021 included significant tax reform, conservative judicial appointments and contentious foreign policies, including withdrawing from international agreements and intensifying trade tensions with China. After his 2020 defeat and subsequent attempts to contest the election, he remained an influential figure within the Republican Party and his recent re-election reflects a continuing division within American politics.

For further details on Trump - read Britannica's article on Donald Trump.

Summary

These leaders' policies and actions impact global relations profoundly, influencing everything from trade alliances to security dynamics. Their interactions often draw the attention of the world, with speculations on whether they could lead to new forms of cooperation—or potentially escalate conflicts into broader international crises. The interplay between Xi, Putin, and Trump could shape future decades of world history, especially in the context of hypothetical "World War 3 - scenarios." This makes the "Global Triumvirate" a compelling framework for understanding contemporary Global Politics.

THE CURRENT GEOPOLITICAL LANDSCAPE

The current geopolitical landscape is shaped by powerful blocs, alliances, and institutions that reflect both longstanding alliances and emerging global challenges. These entities often balance cooperation with competition, influenced by economic, military, and political interests.

Here’s a detailed look at major blocs, alliances, and institutions impacting today's global politics:

1. Western Bloc: NATO, G7, and EU

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization): A military alliance established during the Cold War, NATO consists mainly of Western nations like the U.S., Canada, and most European countries. Its main purpose is collective defense, notably outlined in Article 5, which treats an attack on one as an attack on all. Recently, NATO has increased its focus on countering "Russian aggression" - especially with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.
G7: The Group of Seven is an economic alliance of the world’s most advanced economies, including the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK. While not a military bloc, the G7 focuses on issues such as global economic policy, climate change, and international security, often taking positions counter to the interests of emerging blocs like BRICS.
European Union (EU): The EU is a political and economic union of European countries that enables free trade, open borders, and coordinated policies across a broad range of issues. While not a military alliance, the EU works closely with NATO and has been increasingly active in countering threats like cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, often from Russia and China

.

2. Eastern Bloc: CSTO and SCO

CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization): This alliance is a military counterpart to NATO in Eurasia, led by Russia and including countries like Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and others in Central Asia. The CSTO serves as a vehicle for Russian influence in the region and aims to provide a collective security framework for its members, focusing on internal and external security threats.
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO): The SCO, led by China and Russia, includes Central Asian states, India, and Pakistan. It began as a security alliance, but has since expanded to economic and political cooperation. The SCO promotes regional stability and anti-terrorism, but also serves as a counterbalance to Western influence in Asia.

3. BRICS: Emerging Economies

BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa): This economic bloc represents the world’s largest emerging markets, collectively accounting for a significant share of global GDP and population. BRICS seeks to reform the global financial system, often advocating for less Western dominance in institutions like the IMF and World Bank. The bloc emphasises cooperation in technology, development, and trade, though internal geopolitical rivalries, particularly between India and China, sometimes limit its cohesion.
BRICS New Development Bank (NDB): The NDB was established to provide financing for infrastructure and sustainable development projects within BRICS and other emerging economies, countering Western-dominated financial institutions.

.

4. Middle Eastern Alliances: OPEC and GCC

OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries): Consisting of major oil-exporting nations, OPEC plays a crucial role in global oil markets by coordinating petroleum policies among its member countries. This alliance influences global oil prices and impacts economies worldwide. Recent years have seen increased coordination between OPEC and Russia, referred to as OPEC+, which has added further control over oil supply.
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): This economic and political alliance comprises six Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. While primarily focused on economic cooperation, the GCC plays a role in regional security, countering Iran’s influence, and balancing relations with global powers like the U.S. and China.

.

5. Global Institutions: United Nations and IMF/World Bank

United Nations (UN): The UN remains the primary international organisation promoting global peace, security, and human rights. Key bodies within the UN, such as the Security Council, are influential in conflict resolution. However, the UN faces challenges from member states with conflicting interests, such as the veto powers of the U.S., Russia, and China in the Security Council.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank: These financial institutions support global economic stability and development, often by providing loans and financial assistance to countries in need. Criticized for promoting Western interests, both organisations are facing calls for reform to better represent emerging economies, a change that BRICS advocates.

.

6. Indo-Pacific and AUKUS

Indo-Pacific Strategy: This is an informal bloc aimed at countering China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly through alliances like the U.S.-Japan-India-Australia Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad.” This coalition focuses on security and economic policies aimed at maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific.
AUKUS (Australia, United Kingdom, United States): A new security alliance, AUKUS focuses on sharing military technology, notably nuclear-powered submarines, to counterbalance China’s growing naval power in the Indo-Pacific.

.

These blocs, alliances, and institutions continue to shift and adapt in response to current global tensions, often shaped by power dynamics between key players like the U.S., China, Russia, and the EU. The balance between these alliances impacts global security, economic stability, and political influence, making the world increasingly multipolar and interconnected.

THE GLOBAL TRIUMVIRATE &

A NEW WORLD ORDER

1. National State Interests of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump: Each of these leaders has a distinct national agenda that could converge in a potential “Global Triumvirate.”

(i) Xi Jinping's priorities focus on establishing China as a dominant global economic and military power, particularly within Asia, while asserting control over Taiwan and the South China Sea. Xi’s vision emphasises long-term economic and technological self-sufficiency to reduce dependency on Western countries and to resist U.S. containment efforts. Economically, China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) serves as a means to expand influence globally, enhancing trade routes while establishing economic dependencies with participating nations.

(ii) Vladimir Putin’s interests center on reasserting Russia’s influence within its neighbouring regions and countering NATO’s influence in Eastern Europe. The invasion of Ukraine reflects his aim to maintain Russia's "sphere of influence." Putin also seeks partnerships that reduce reliance on the West, such as energy trade agreements with China and aims to foster a multipolar world order, where Russia plays a pivotal role.

(iii) For Donald Trump, a second term would likely continue his "America First" agenda, prioritizing domestic economic stability, secure borders, and a reduction of U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. Trump would likely focus on reining in China’s economic expansion while limiting Russia’s leverage in Europe, though he favours a pragmatic, less interventionist foreign policy that avoids prolonged military commitments.

2. Global Triumvirate as a Self-Interested Geopolitical Entity:

If these leaders formed a Global Triumvirate, it would likely operate as a loose alliance driven by their overlapping desire to undermine the current global order. This arrangement could facilitate coordinated efforts to weaken Western alliances, specifically targeting NATO and the influence of the European Union. The group could also work to establish a new framework for international trade and security that reduces the U.S. dollar’s global dominance, which would diminish American financial influence.

In terms of strategy, they could exploit economic and military influence by combining resources: China and Russia could lead military alliances, while Trump’s U.S. would focus on achieving economic objectives through selective tariffs and bilateral trade deals rather than multilateral agreements. By pooling influence, this Triumvirate could push for regional dominance in Asia and Eastern Europe - distributing territories, on a "shared global triumvirate interests - basis."

3. Potential Results of This New World Order:

A Triumvirate-driven world order might lead to a multipolar system where power is distributed among several key regions rather than centered around the U.S. This could increase geopolitical tensions as countries align with one of these power blocs, potentially leading to regional conflicts. Economically, a shift away from U.S.-led institutions like the IMF and World Bank toward alternatives backed by China and Russia could reshape international development and reduce Western influence in emerging markets.

Domestically, the leaders would benefit from this arrangement by solidifying their regimes, gaining political leverage, and potentially suppressing internal dissent by attributing issues to “Western interference.” For Trump, aligning with this alliance would be an unorthodox, but pragmatic step toward reducing foreign policy costs while keeping rivals like China in check through selective cooperation. However, this arrangement’s stability would be uncertain, as each leader’s long-term objectives may diverge significantly, possibly leading to conflicts within the alliance itself if interests no longer align.

Global Politics Implications

Impact on Global Politics in General
A self-interested “Global Triumvirate” involving Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would likely accelerate a shift toward a multipolar world order. In this configuration, power would be more dispersed across regional blocs led by key players like China, Russia and potentially a more isolationist U.S. under Trump. The result would likely be a significant weakening of multilateral organisations, such as the United Nations and a move away from existing norms established by Western democracies. This shift could embolden other authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes to challenge Western influence in areas such as trade, human rights and security policy

Moreover, traditional alliances like NATO and the EU might face fragmentation if individual member states choose to align more closely with a Triumvirate-led bloc for economic or security reasons. For instance, countries in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, could find themselves pressured to side with either the U.S. or China-Russia alliances, leading to a new “Cold War”-like scenario, where states act as proxies for their respective patrons. This shift could also diminish the role of global governance institutions, increasing reliance on regional mechanisms tailored to the Triumvirate’s interests and further fracturing international law and norms.

World War 3 Scenarios
In the context of World War 3 scenarios, this Triumvirate structure could significantly increase the likelihood of conflicts in specific regions. The alliance’s combined economic, military, and technological capacities would allow each country to back its strategic ambitions more assertively, potentially leading to confrontation zones in Eastern Europe, the South China Sea, and the Middle East. China could push harder in the Asia-Pacific, particularly regarding Taiwan, emboldened by Russia’s support, while Russia might intensify its influence in Eastern Europe, expecting either tacit or explicit backing from its allies in the Triumvirate.

Non-state actors could also exploit this fractured global landscape. For example, Regional Insurgencies, Cyber-Warfare and proxy conflicts could become more frequent, as actors leverage support from one of the Triumvirate states, to disrupt adversaries. Technological warfare, including Cyber Attacks and the use of Artificial Intelligence and Drones - would likely play a pivotal role, with each Triumvirate member developing or exporting these technologies to maintain their global influence. The Triumvirate could even foster AI-enhanced autonomous weapons, creating a new arms race that involves cyber vulnerabilities, making conventional security measures less effective and raising global tensions.

A political shift caused by this Triumvirate would likely create an unstable world order, with enhanced risks of regional conflicts escalating into broader confrontations.

Probability of Global Triumvirate

Searched 3 sites

The potential for a global "triumvirate" aligning Russia, China, and Iran is conceivable and even partially realized, though it remains informal and driven by strategic, rather than binding, commitments. Recent global developments have seen China and Russia, in particular, solidify a shared stance opposing U.S. and NATO influence in Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific region. The Russia-China partnership is deepening, underpinned by mutual goals to counter Western dominance and promote alternative visions of governance. This partnership has been termed “superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era,” with both nations professing "no forbidden areas of cooperation" despite no formal military alliance in place.

While Iran aligns with Russia and China on key issues, particularly in its stance against U.S. influence in the Middle East, this cooperation is more selective. Iran leverages its relations with both China and Russia for military and economic support, as seen through weapons transactions and strategic agreements for oil and trade. However, Iran's relationship with each differs: its military ties are closer to Russia, while its economic and developmental projects are more closely linked with China's Belt and Road Initiative.

In addition to this trio, non-aligned states and regional powers sometimes play significant roles as they negotiate or form temporary partnerships based on overlapping strategic interests. These actors include Turkey, North Korea, and even Venezuela, each interacting with parts of this "triumvirate" to varying degrees, depending on their own geopolitical needs and pressures from the U.S. and allies.

While such a "triumvirate" does not yet represent a formal global bloc, statistical probability favors further collaboration among these nations, given continued Western sanctions, economic pressures, and shared ideological opposition to Western liberal democratic models. However, internal economic, political, and cultural differences among Russia, China, and Iran present significant challenges to achieving a fully cohesive or unified triumvirate, even if alignment continues on select global issues.

STATISTICAL PROBABILITY OF A GLOBAL TRIUMVIRATE IN RELATION TO XI, PUTIN & TRUMP

The concept of a “Global Triumvirate” involving Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump taps into recent shifts in "global power dynamics" - where overlapping interests among these leaders could potentially consolidate significant influence over Global Affairs. Xi and Putin have already established a formidable partnership focused on countering U.S. influence, bolstered by joint military exercises, strategic coordination in international organisations, and shared anti-Western rhetoric. Yet, their alignment is complex, marked by regional and economic tensions and differing visions of power structures, which may hinder the formation of a cohesive "triarchy" of leaders

Should Trump re-enter office, his stance on China and Russia would play a crucial role. While his prior administration oscillated between confrontation (especially with China) and rapprochement with Putin, he advocated for policies that often unsettled traditional Western alliances, which may make him an unpredictable third member. Any alliance between these three leaders would likely be transactional, with cooperation mainly focused on mutual short-term gains rather than a solidified, long-term alliance.

In reality, the challenges of sustaining this triumvirate—especially with each leader’s distinct political objectives, internal priorities and economic differences — would make a stable global alliance difficult. However, in specific areas like trade de-dollarisation, military posturing and efforts to undermine Western dominance, there is potential for limited coordination on an ad-hoc basis.

TECHNOLOGY & THE RISE TO POWER OF A GLOBAL TRIUMVIRATE

The role of technology, especially AI, would be pivotal if a “Global Triumvirate” formed by Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump rose to prominence. AI could enhance control, surveillance, economic leverage and strategic military capabilities, especially through data analytics, cyber operations, and autonomous systems.

China (Xi Jinping): Likely to benefit most, due to China's advanced AI ecosystem and significant investments in AI for economic, surveillance, and military applications, potentially securing strategic dominance.
Russia (Putin)): Would leverage AI primarily for Cyber Warfare and Surveillance, enhancing its already robust cyber capabilities and bolstering state control - over information and public opinion.
United States (Trump): Trump’s leadership might emphasise AI in defense and economic arenas, focusing on job automation and AI-driven economic growth.

AI would also heighten cybersecurity risks and intensify state surveillance, shaping the political and military landscape. Strategic deployment of AI tools by each member could both empower and destabilise global institutions, especially as authoritarian AI usage rises.

GLOBAL TRIUMVIRATE - OPPOSITION

To understand the potential barriers each “Global Triumvirate" member might face, we can explore the types of opposition each could encounter domestically and internationally.

Xi Jinping

(1) Domestic Opposition

Political: Some internal factions within the Communist Party are concerned about Xi's centralized power, which could pose challenges if these factions gain traction or align with dissatisfied elite groups.
Economic: Economic slowdowns and rising youth unemployment present opposition through public discontent, particularly among urban populations affected by economic stagnation.
Social/Cultural: Civil society and human rights activists, as well as urban intellectuals, sometimes voice opposition to censorship and social controls.
Religious: Restrictions on religious practices and institutions create friction with groups like Uighurs, Tibetan Buddhists, and underground Christian churches.

(2) Regional & Global Opposition

Political Institutions: Countries within Asia-Pacific regional organizations like ASEAN sometimes oppose China's regional dominance, especially regarding territorial issues in the South China Sea.
Economic Institutions: Western economies and financial institutions push back against China's trade policies and intellectual property practices.
Social/Cultural Opposition: Western countries and activists criticize China’s policies on human rights, including treatment of minority groups.
Religious/Spiritual: Some religious groups and leaders globally speak out against China's restrictions on religious freedom.

Vladimir Putin

(1) Domestic Opposition

Political: Opposition parties and movements, such as Alexei Navalny's supporters, criticize corruption and authoritarianism; however, state suppression limits their influence.
Economic: Russia’s dependence on energy exports has left it vulnerable to economic sanctions and fluctuations in oil prices, impacting public opinion and creating economic discontent.
Social/Cultural: Younger Russians, particularly in urban areas, increasingly voice discontent with limited freedoms.
Religious: While Putin has strong ties with the Orthodox Church, some religious minorities and secular activists oppose state-backed religious dominance.

(2) Regional & Global Opposition

Political Institutions: NATO and the EU stand firmly against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, particularly after the annexation of Crimea and involvement in Ukraine.
Economic Institutions: Sanctions from Western countries and financial institutions limit Russia’s trade and financial transactions.
Social/Cultural: Human rights organisations and Western nations frequently condemn Russia’s policies on LGBTQ+ rights and freedom of expression.
Religious/Spiritual: Some global religious organizations criticize Russian interference in neighboring Orthodox churches, like Ukraine's.

Donald Trump

(1) Domestic Opposition

Political: Trump faces opposition from Democrats, certain Republican factions, and political institutions that are wary of his populist, anti-establishment rhetoric and tactics.
Economic: His economic policies, especially tariffs and deregulation, face criticism from businesses, economists and labor groups concerned about their long-term effects.
Social/Cultural: Progressive groups, social activists, and younger demographics often oppose his views on immigration, climate change, and social justice.
Religious: Some religious groups, particularly those advocating for social justice or immigrant rights, challenge his policies on ethical grounds.

(2) Regional & Global Opposition

Political Institutions: Trump’s stances on NATO, the UN, and trade agreements created friction with U.S. allies, with some seeing his policies as isolating or unpredictable.
Economic Institutions: Multilateral institutions like the WTO opposed his tariffs and trade wars, fearing long-term economic destabilization.
Social/Cultural: Western allies, especially in Europe, are often critical of his views on climate policy, human rights, and multilateralism.
Religious/Spiritual: Various international religious organisations voice concern over his policies on immigration and social issues.

This breakdown highlights the range of domestic and international forces each leader would need to navigate within a hypothetical “Global Triumvirate,” as their policies encounter - political, economic, social, and cultural resistance across numerous fronts.

CONSEQUENCES OF A GLOBAL TRIUMVIRATE OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS

A hypothetical “Global Triumvirate” of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump would have wide-ranging impacts on global geopolitics, with potential destabilisation effects on the established international order, given each leader's unique approach to power, governance, and foreign policy. Here’s an analysis of what such an alignment might mean across several key regions and countries:

1. China: Xi Jinping's China has been expanding its influence both regionally and globally through economic initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, which has extended Chinese economic leverage. If partnered with Putin and Trump - Xi could benefit from decreased Western interference, potentially solidifying Chinese dominance in East Asia and increasing global acceptance of Chinese authoritarian models. However, the United States might still challenge China’s dominance in trade and military influence, despite the Trump administration's relatively isolationist stance previously.

2. Russia: Vladimir Putin has consistently sought to undermine Western alliances and influence, particularly in Europe and the former Soviet states. A triumvirate could allow him to push forward with expansionist goals, especially if the U.S., under Trump - chooses not to intervene in regions like Ukraine or the Baltics. Putin might increase political and economic influence in Eastern Europe, with fewer checks from NATO and European powers, particularly if U.S. support wanes.

3. United States: Under Trump, the U.S. took a more isolationist and transactional approach, stepping back from traditional alliances and focusing on economic gains over political alliances. A return to this approach might lead to reduced U.S. involvement in NATO, diminishing the U.S.'s leadership role and destabilising the alliance. This shift could weaken America's global influence, potentially encouraging Xi and Putin to test U.S. responses in disputed regions.

4. United Kingdom and European States: The U.K. and Europe may face an increased security burden if the U.S. reduces its commitments to NATO. This would likely drive Europe toward greater self-reliance, potentially leading to the expansion of EU-led military capabilities. Economically, Europe might feel the pressure from a China-Russia-U.S. alliance in trade policies and diplomatic alignments, possibly fracturing the EU on how to deal with such a coalition.

5. Global Impact: The formation of such a bloc could disrupt the established international order, which has largely been shaped by post-World War II alliances, open markets and multilateral organizations (e.g., the United Nations, IMF). This trio might favour bilateral deals, transactional diplomacy and an erosion of multilateral institutions, which could create more regional conflicts and global power struggles, particularly with other emerging powers like India or blocs like the EU attempting to counterbalance this alliance.

This scenario is speculative, but draws from these leaders' past policies and stated goals. For additional context on the potential effects of a shift away from traditional alliances, see further analysis from brookings, which explores the global dynamics of competing powers in an evolving geopolitical landscape.

WORLD WAR & APPARATUS OF WAR

Several regions around the world are considered potential flashpoints for a large-scale conflict or even "World War Scenarios" - often due to complex geopolitical tensions, territorial disputes, or ideological divides. Advances in technology, such as AI, drones, and autonomous weapons, further intensify these risks, enabling both state and non-state actors to exert power beyond traditional military limitations. Here’s a breakdown of key regions, factors contributing to their volatility and the potential role of advanced technologies and non-state actors.

1. Eastern Europe: Ukraine and Baltic States

Why It Qualifies: The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine highlights Eastern Europe as a high-stakes region. NATO’s expansion toward Russia’s borders, is perceived by Moscow as a security threat and Russia’s military incursions have escalated fears of broader conflict involving NATO members, especially in the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.)
Technology and Non-State Actors: Russia and Ukraine have used drones extensively for reconnaissance and attacks. Non-state actors, including mercenary groups like the Wagner Group, have played a significant role. Cyber warfare, powered by AI, is a constant threat, with both sides deploying attacks on each other’s critical infrastructure.

2. South China Sea and Taiwan Strait

Why It Qualifies: China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea conflict with those of several Southeast Asian countries. Additionally, tensions over Taiwan, which China views as a breakaway province, pose a risk of direct confrontation with the United States and its allies. The U.S. has formal commitments to support Taiwan’s defense, making this region a potential battleground.
Technology and Non-State Actors: China has rapidly advanced its military technology, including autonomous drones and AI-powered naval systems. The region is also a hotspot for cyber espionage, as state-backed hackers engage in intelligence gathering and destabilising cyber operations. China’s AI capabilities enhance its surveillance and control over contested areas and its advancements in missile technology increase the strategic threat to nearby U.S. bases and allies.

3. Middle East: Iran, Israel, and Gulf States

Why It Qualifies: Tensions in the Middle East are often centered around Iran’s nuclear program, its regional influence and its support for proxy groups in countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Conflicts between Israel and Iran, as well as between Iran and Saudi Arabia, make the region particularly volatile.
Technology and Non-State Actors: The Middle East has seen significant drone warfare, especially in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, where groups backed by Iran have targeted both state and non-state actors. Israel’s Iron Dome system and Iran’s use of drones and ballistic missiles are examples of how AI-enhanced and autonomous systems impact modern warfare. Cyber operations, such as the Stuxnet attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, demonstrate the region's vulnerability to high-stakes Cyber Warfare.

4. North Korea and the Korean Peninsula

Why It Qualifies: North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, combined with its periodic missile tests, pose a persistent threat to regional stability. The proximity of U.S. forces in South Korea and Japan makes this region a flashpoint for potential escalation.
Technology and Non-State Actors: North Korea has reportedly developed cyber capabilities to finance its military through cyber thefts and ransomware attacks. The country has also pursued missile technology aggressively and AI could enhance its missile targeting and detection evasion capabilities. Non-state actors, such as defectors and activist groups, add a layer of complexity, often conducting information campaigns and smuggling goods across borders, which could increase tensions.

5. India-Pakistan Border (Kashmir)

Why It Qualifies: The disputed region of Kashmir is a long-standing flashpoint between nuclear-armed neighbours, India and Pakistan. Both countries have a history of skirmishes and limited conflicts and the potential for escalation is significant due to the religious and nationalistic tensions surrounding Kashmir.
Technology and Non-State Actors: Both countries deploy drones for surveillance and occasionally, for targeted strikes along the Line of Control. AI-driven systems can enhance border monitoring and threat response, while extremist groups in the region, such as those involved in past cross-border terrorism, contribute to instability and the risk of escalation.

6. Sahel Region in Africa

Why It Qualifies: The Sahel faces political instability, insurgencies and increasing influence from jihadist groups affiliated with ISIS and Al-Qaeda. These groups exploit weak governance and have gained control over significant territories in countries like Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger.
Technology and Non-State Actors: Non-state actors are particularly influential here, as terrorist groups employ small arms, guerrilla tactics and occasionally drones. AI and advanced surveillance technology, often supplied by international partners, help local governments and peacekeeping forces counter these insurgents. The increasing role of private military companies, such as the Wagner Group, adds to the complexity of the conflict.

7. Cyber and Space Domains

Why They Qualify: Although not geographical regions, Cyber and Space are emerging arenas of conflict with potential for global ramifications. Cyber-attacks targeting infrastructure, financial systems and government databases can cause widespread disruption without direct physical confrontation. The militarisation of Space also raises the risk of conflict, with countries like the U.S., Russia, and China developing anti-satellite weapons.
Technology and Non-State Actors: AI powers cyber operations by automating tasks, analyzing massive data sets and identifying vulnerabilities faster than human hackers. Non-state actors, such as hacktivist groups and cyber mercenaries, can launch cyber-attacks that impact national security. In space, AI enables autonomous satellite systems for navigation, surveillance and potential defense/offense capabilities.

Impact of AI, Drones, and Autonomous Weapons

Artificial Intelligence: AI enhances strategic planning, reconnaissance, and real-time decision-making. For example, AI algorithms analyse satellite imagery to detect troop movements and optimize military logistics. Autonomous AI-powered systems, if unregulated, could escalate conflicts as they might make lethal decisions faster than human oversight allows.
Drones and Autonomous Weapons: Drones have revolutionised Modern Warfare by enabling strikes without risking personnel. Autonomous drones and loitering munitions can operate in swarms, overwhelm defenses and execute missions with minimal human intervention. However, drones in the hands of terrorist groups or rogue states can pose a serious threat to civilians and infrastructure.
Non-State Actors: Groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and various regional militias use guerrilla tactics and exploit weak governments. In Cyberspace, Hacktivists and Cyber Mercenaries, destabilise national economies and critical infrastructure, often serving political motives or economic gains.

Conclusion

Each of these regions presents unique risks, with state and non-state actors leveraging advanced technology to expand their influence and disrupt traditional power balances. The integration of AI, drones, and autonomous weapons into warfare magnifies the potential for escalation and blurs lines of accountability. As geopolitical rivalries intensify, the probability of miscalculation or unintended conflict grows, creating a precarious global security environment.

"WORLD WAR 3 SCENARIOS"

In a hypothetical “World War III” scenario, involving a “Global Triumvirate” of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump - the dynamics and outcomes would vary greatly depending on the alignment, capabilities, and strategies of each leader and their respective countries.

1. Could the Global Triumvirate Survive World War III?

The survival of a triumvirate alliance among China, Russia, and a Trump-led United States, in a global conflict depends heavily on shared interests and a mutual commitment to maintaining power rather than adhering to historical alliances. Although these leaders share anti-Western sentiment and a desire for a multipolar world, their national interests diverge. Xi aims to make China, the dominant global economic and military force, Putin wants to restore Russia’s influence in Eurasia - and Trump seeks to redefine U.S. involvement on his terms, favouring unilateralism over global order. Such differing goals and the inherent instability of three competing superpowers could make sustained unity challenging under the pressures of a global war.

The ideological and strategic goals of these leaders often clash, leading to high potential for distrust or even direct confrontation. For example, China and Russia may eventually find it difficult to trust Trump, given his record of volatility and “America First” policies that prioritize U.S. interests, often at the expense of allies and partners. Likewise, Putin and Xi’s longer-term strategic goals may conflict if Russian or Chinese interests become incompatible with Trump's policies of non-intervention or economic protectionism.

2. General Overview of a Global Triumvirate in Power During Global Conflict

A triumvirate with these three leaders would reshape global power - as they would focus on consolidating regional dominance and challenging Western institutions like NATO and the European Union. Their potential coordination could alter world order, impacting global trade, security alliances, and access to strategic resources. However, maintaining this alliance could be difficult, especially in wartime, where misalignment in military and economic priorities could surface. For instance, Russia might prioritise Eurasian influence, while China could focus on South China Sea or Taiwan, potentially creating competing zones of influence that strain their unity.

Additionally, such a triumvirate could lead to a new kind of cold war, with the West potentially realigning to counter this axis, leading to sanctions, proxy wars, and potential nuclear standoffs. The durability of the alliance would be tested in such a scenario, as the Western response could deepen divides between the three leaders based on their individual national agendas.

3. Consequences for Each Country in a World War III Scenario

China:
For China, a world conflict under Xi Jinping would likely prioritise securing regional dominance, specifically over Taiwan, the South China Sea and extending influence in Asia and Africa through its Belt and Road Initiative. A prolonged global conflict could strain China’s economy, especially if it faces coordinated sanctions or blockades by Western powers. China's military, though rapidly modernising, could face strategic challenges from a coalition of Western and Asian powers. Additionally, global trade disruptions would critically impact China's economy, given its dependence on exports.

Russia:
In Putin’s Russia, the focus would likely be on expanding influence in former Soviet states and securing energy resources, which remain crucial to Russia’s economy. However, a global conflict could lead to devastating sanctions that further isolate the Russian economy, making it reliant on China. Russian military capabilities would be strained, as its conventional forces would be challenged by NATO and allied forces. Putin would need to balance this with domestic challenges, as prolonged economic hardship could undermine his popularity and lead to internal dissent.

United States (under Trump):
With Trump at the helm, the U.S. might adopt a more isolationist approach, focusing on defending U.S. borders and disengaging from traditional alliances. However, Trump's unpredictable foreign policy could alienate potential allies, weakening global support for the U.S. Conversely, a more isolationist U.S. could leave a power vacuum in Europe and Asia, which Xi and Putin would likely exploit. This isolationist stance might ultimately undermine the U.S.’s global influence, reducing its ability to counter threats from both China and Russia effectively.

Conclusion

In essence, while a triumvirate led by Xi, Putin and Trump could shake global order, the inherent differences in each leader's goals and approaches make it an unstable alliance, particularly under the stresses of a global war. This alliance would likely face significant internal fractures, reducing the odds of surviving a prolonged world war without significant internal and external turmoil.

For more in-depth analysis on this topic, sources such as Brookings provide context on each leader’s historical approach to global power structures and alliances: Brookings - Trump, Xi, Putin, and the Axis of Disorder

PLAYERS & ACTORS

For a "Global Triumvirate" led by Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to take shape, the formation would likely be influenced by mutual interests rather than formal alliances, driven by a shared vision of reshaping global power dynamics. Here’s a look at potential partners and stakeholders, and their motivations:

1. Strategic Partners and Supporters

Regional Allies: Countries such as Iran and Syria have a shared interest in reducing U.S. influence, aligning themselves with Russia’s and China's regional aims. Some Southeast Asian nations may also seek economic partnerships with China.
Economic Entities: Energy and resource-rich countries or corporations with close ties to Russia or China, like energy firms in the Middle East, might support these leaders' efforts to restructure global trade networks to prioritize Eastern over Western economies.

2. Other Relevant Actors

Western Leaders with Anti-Globalist or Populist Views: Leaders or political groups in Europe or Latin America, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban or some populist groups in Brazil, might align ideologically with the Triumvirate’s opposition to Western liberalism and globalism.
Private Sector and Media: Certain sectors, especially those prioritizing rapid economic growth and favorable trade with China, might prefer a stable business-friendly environment that these leaders promise, regardless of democratic principles.
Non-State Actors: Groups like cyber actors from countries like North Korea, or hacktivist groups with anti-Western or anti-globalist agendas, may align indirectly by promoting narratives or conducting operations that destabilise Western alliances.

3. Potential Risks and Obstacles

Internal Political Instability: Each leader has domestic challenges; Trump's internal U.S. opposition, Putin’s economic and political hurdles and Xi’s social control measures in China all pose risks.
Mutual Distrust and Diverging Agendas: Despite converging interests, each leader has different priorities and balancing them without direct conflicts would be challenging.

This Triumvirate could disrupt established global institutions and foster a multipolar world, reducing Western influence. However, achieving this requires substantial strategic alignment and cooperation to outweigh the risks of diverging national interests and global pushback.

ORGANISED CRIME

Organised Crime Response to a Hypothetical Global Triumvirate of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump

(a) In General

Organised crime networks could adapt to leverage the potentially relaxed international coordination and enforcement, if the “Global Triumvirate” favours national sovereignty over international regulations. Their illicit activities may grow in sophistication, exploiting gaps created by reduced cooperation among global enforcement agencies.

(b) Regional & Continental Response

Each leader's control style could impact organised crime differently across regions:

Asia (China): Xi's strict policies against crime, particularly in China, would likely force organised groups to operate more covertly or in collaboration with corrupt local officials.
Europe/Eurasia (Russia): Putin's Russia has historically tolerated certain organised crime if beneficial to state interests, especially if tied to intelligence or political influence.
Americas (U.S.): Trump’s focus on border security might intensify regional crime networks in Latin America, but strong U.S. opposition could push them to seek protection in Central and South America.

(c) Global Organisational Structures

Global Cartels: Triumvirate policies could indirectly encourage larger, trans-national cartel cooperation, especially as enforcement cooperation potentially diminishes.
Continental/Regional Cartels: Organised crime groups might localise operations to evade detection, adapting to exploit varying enforcement levels across continents.
State Cartels: Each leader’s style might enable crime syndicates that operate under state protection or influence, as seen in Russia or with some factions in China.

(d) Organised Crime Products

Drugs: Decreased international enforcement could boost trafficking, with Russian, Latin American and Asian groups possibly expanding cooperation or smuggling routes.
Sex Trafficking: Increased trafficking may occur, particularly in regions where regulations are lax; traffickers could capitalise on Triumvirate alliances that deprioritise global social enforcement.
Money Laundering: Organised crime could benefit from relaxed regulations, with illicit finance flowing through financial centers in countries with less stringent oversight.
Human Trafficking: A reduced international focus might embolden traffickers, with routes expanding across less monitored borders.
Corporate Fraud: State-affiliated or protected organised crime groups could use corporate fraud for financial gains, potentially even with state complicity if it aligns with national interests.
Sale of Illegal Weapons: With less international coordination, weapons trafficking could increase, particularly to regions of conflict where a “Global Triumvirate’s” policies foster instability.
Internet & Cyber Warfare: Cybercrime may surge, with crime groups collaborating with state actors or receiving indirect protection under nationalist policies that downplay international cyber regulations.

In this scenario, the “Global Triumvirate” could unintentionally create an environment conducive to organised crime expansion, as diminished international oversight may embolden illicit activities across regions and product types.

Consequence

Consequences of Organised Crime Growth under a Global Triumvirate:

1. Nation-State Impact

Governance Strain: Widespread organised crime challenges government control, especially in states with limited resources. Some states may lose influence over large regions to criminal syndicates.
Corruption & Instability: Criminal infiltration in politics and law enforcement can erode public trust, weaken state institutions, and foster cycles of corruption.
Economy & Public Security: Drug, arms, and human trafficking can destabilise economies, reduce investor confidence, and heighten violence.

2. Impact on Global Populations

Security Risks: Increased violence, exploitation, and trafficking directly harm communities, with vulnerable populations suffering most.
Public Health: Drug proliferation and human trafficking strain healthcare systems and increase health crises.
Economic Disparity: Crime concentration in certain areas widens social inequality, creating unsafe environments and stunting economic growth.

3. Armed Conflict Possibility Between Nation-States and Organised Crime

Likelihood: There is potential for open conflict between states and powerful crime syndicates, particularly where crime dominates local economies or challenges state authority.
Regional Differences:
- In Latin America, cartels already conflict with governments, risking further violence.
- In Eurasia, organized crime may integrate more with state systems under authoritarian regimes, reducing direct conflict.
- In Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe, government collusion with crime groups might prevent large-scale conflict but increase corruption.

4. Overall Outcome Possibility

Nation-State vs. Organised Crime: Likely outcomes depend on the region. In authoritarian states, governments may maintain nominal control, but compromise by tacitly allowing criminal operations. Democratic nations might struggle, with criminal networks undermining governance and stability.
Triumvirate vs. Organised Crime: If the Triumvirate tolerates or partners with crime groups, organised crime could flourish without substantial opposition. Alternatively, a unified Triumvirate response could destabilise global organised crime, by targeting leaders and financial networks.

Ultimately, in this scenario, neither nation-states nor organised crime achieve a clear "victory." The Triumvirate’s success would depend on whether it prioritises crime suppression or allows organised networks to grow for strategic advantage. Regional alliances and effective governance would play decisive roles.

For more detailed geopolitical analysis, regional impacts, and current data on crime-state interactions, further research from think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and Brookings Institution can provide in-depth sources and case studies.

Oladipo Adegboyega Adelaja & Candice Adelaja,

SOTI Collected Works

Edited by Candice Adelaja