The world is in a holding pattern—for now

History often moves in cycles, with periods of stability followed by times of upheaval. Today, the world finds itself in a precarious state, teetering between progress and crisis. Economic uncertainty, geopolitical tensions, and social instability suggest that we may be nearing a breaking point. Yet, despite these challenges, history also teaches us that new leadership and reform can emerge from moments of crisis. The question is: will we see a shift toward rational governance, or will we repeat the mistakes of the past?

Are we at the end of an era of prosperity?

For much of the post-Cold War period, the world experienced relative stability and economic growth, punctuated by occasional financial crises and regional conflicts. However, multiple factors suggest that this period of prosperity may be ending:

• Economic fragility: Rising inequality, unsustainable debt levels, and global inflation point to a potential economic downturn. The U.S. appears to be heading into recession, which could have global ramifications.
• Geopolitical uncertainty: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, tensions over Taiwan, the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and the tribal wars and terrorism in Africa suggest that global stability is eroding.
• Structural global problems: Climate change, digital monopolies, and political polarisation remain unresolved, contributing to long-term instability.

The Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci described such transitional moments as an interregnum—a period where the old order is dying, but the new has not yet been born. In this phase, uncertainty prevails, and the future remains open-ended. This concept fits well with our current reality: the world is between two historical phases, and the instability we see is a symptom of that unresolved transition.

Despite these concerns, a full-scale collapse is not inevitable. The direction we take will depend on the quality of leadership and the willingness of societies to demand effective solutions.

War or systemic reform?

Historically, major changes have been driven by crises. The Great Depression led to both the New Deal and the rise of fascism; the Cold War saw both proxy wars and technological advancements; the fall of the Soviet Union ushered in a new global order without direct war. Today, we are at a similar crossroads:

• As economic pain deepens, will societies demand reforms, or will they turn further to populist strongmen offering simplistic solutions?
• As geopolitical conflicts escalate, will diplomacy prevail, or will the world slip into a broader war?
• As climate disasters intensify, will governments take meaningful action, or will inaction lead to further chaos?

The political philosopher Hannah Arendt argued that crises reveal the need for new political thinking and leadership. They expose the inadequacy of old institutions and force societies to rethink their structures. If leaders recognise this opportunity, systemic reform is possible. If not, history suggests that crises often lead to reactionary measures or authoritarian solutions, rather than constructive change.

Leadership in times of crisis

The emergence of great leaders often coincides with major crises. Churchill’s leadership was forged in World War II, Mandela emerged from decades of oppression to lead South Africa, and Zelensky rose to global prominence when Ukraine faced existential threats. The world today lacks clear visionary leaders, but that does not mean they won’t emerge.

The current wave of populism has produced leaders who thrive on division rather than problem-solving. However, populist movements often burn out when they fail to deliver real results. This could create an opening for more competent and pragmatic leadership in the coming years.

Arendt reminds us that true leadership in crises requires a capacity for new beginnings, rather than just managing decline. The leaders who will shape the future must redefine political and economic structures, rather than merely attempt to preserve outdated systems.

A holding pattern, but not forever

For now, the world is in a pre-crisis phase—problems are mounting, but no single event has yet forced a radical change. The global economy is shaky but still functioning. Conflicts are ongoing but have not yet escalated into full-scale global wars. Political dysfunction is evident, but no alternative system has yet emerged.

The philosopher Jacques Derrida would caution against assuming that any future transition will bring stability. His idea of deconstruction teaches us that structures (political, economic, and social) are never fixed, but are constantly evolving, breaking down, and being reconstructed in new ways. The assumption that the post-Cold War order was stable was, in his view, always an illusion. We are now witnessing the fragility of what we once took for granted.

This holding pattern cannot last indefinitely. Whether the next shift will bring war, economic collapse, or a new era of rational governance depends on the choices made by political leaders and the will of the people. If history is any guide, real change will come—but only when a crisis forces it.

Optimism or pessimism?

History suggests that crises can lead to either destructive authoritarianism or visionary leadership and reform. The world has faced existential challenges before and emerged stronger, but only after exhausting all easier and often damaging alternatives.

Friedrich Nietzsche spoke of eternal recurrence—the idea that history moves in cycles, repeating destruction and rebirth. If we accept this view, then we are simply witnessing another historical cycle that must play out before transformation occurs. However, if we take a more active role, we may be able to break this cycle and forge something new.

Derrida, on the other hand, would argue that our desire for fixed outcomes—whether optimism or pessimism—is itself a kind of illusion. The future is not predetermined; it is a constant process of negotiation, reinterpretation, and transformation. In that sense, our holding pattern is not just a waiting period but part of the ongoing deconstruction and reconstruction of global systems.

The world may be in a holding pattern today, but the next few years will determine whether we enter another cycle of chaos or finally break the cycle with genuine reform. While the trend currently leans toward instability, history shows that when the moment demands it, transformative leaders can and do emerge.

The only question is: will it take catastrophe to bring them forward, or can we course-correct before disaster strikes?

Paul Budde

Further thinking about this….

From holding pattern to unravelling order: the return of conquest in global politics

The illusion of stability

For decades, the world has operated under the assumption that territorial conquest is a relic of the past. Since 1945, the principle of territorial integrity has been a foundation of the international order. However, as outlined above in The World is in a Holding Pattern, global affairs are in a state of stagnation, where decisive action is repeatedly deferred. Now, this holding pattern is breaking down, and with it, the long-standing norm against conquest is beginning to erode. The return of conquest is not just a theoretical possibility—it is already happening in ways both blatant and subtle.

the breakdown of the territorial integrity principle

For much of the modern era, it was assumed that forcibly changing borders was a historical anomaly, yet recent events suggest otherwise. The most obvious example is Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Despite international condemnation and sanctions, Russia has continued to integrate the annexed regions into its state structures. Now, Ukraine’s recent openness to ceding territory in exchange for NATO membership represents a fundamental shift. If Ukraine, under intense military pressure, is forced to relinquish land, it would set a precedent that conquest, while officially condemned, can still succeed.

Similarly, Israel’s recent moves towards formalising control over occupied Palestinian territories, emboldened by U.S. recognition of its annexation of the Golan Heights in 2019, further underscores that territorial expansion is being selectively tolerated. This selective enforcement of international law is creating an increasingly unstable global landscape.

The US and the hypocrisy of non-conquest

The United States has historically been the primary enforcer of the non-conquest principle—except when it suits its own interests.

• Iraq (2003): While the U.S. did not annex Iraq, it directly violated the country’s sovereignty and engaged in prolonged occupation, undermining the principle of territorial integrity.
• Panama (1989): The U.S. invasion to depose Manuel Noriega was justified on security grounds, but it was also a clear demonstration that powerful states could still intervene militarily when convenient.
• Greenland (2019): Former U.S. President Donald Trump openly suggested buying Greenland from Denmark, a proposal dismissed as absurd but revealing continued U.S. interest in expanding influence over strategic territories.
• Canada (Arctic expansion): Increasing tensions over Arctic sovereignty have led to concerns that the U.S. could challenge Canadian claims, particularly over resources and military access.
• Panama Canal: The U.S. relinquished control of the canal in 1999, but recent strategic shifts have led to discussions about reasserting influence in Panama, particularly given concerns over China’s growing economic role there.
• Trump’s latest threats: In his 2024 campaign rhetoric, Trump has reignited discussions about reasserting U.S. dominance over Canada, Greenland and Panama, framing them as strategic assets that should not be under foreign control. Additionally, he has made veiled threats about using economic and military pressure on Canada over Arctic sovereignty, further escalating tensions between the two allies.

While the U.S. has so far refrained from outright annexation, its economic, military, and diplomatic interventions suggest an imperial mindset remains. The hypocrisy of condemning conquest while engaging in interventionism only weakens the credibility of the non-conquest principle.

China’s long game: conquest without invasion?

Unlike Russia, China has not yet engaged in direct military annexation, but its strategy towards Taiwan mirrors a modern form of conquest—one that does not require immediate military force.

• Economic pressure: China has successfully isolated Taiwan diplomatically, reducing the number of countries that recognise its sovereignty.
• Military intimidation: Regular Chinese military exercises around Taiwan serve as a warning and a psychological tool to normalise the idea of a future takeover.
• Incremental territorial expansion: China’s actions in the South China Sea—building artificial islands, establishing military bases, and ignoring international rulings—show that territorial conquest does not need to happen in one decisive war, but in slow, calculated steps.

China is learning from Russia’s experience. Instead of risking global backlash through sudden annexation, it is positioning itself to take Taiwan in a way that may be perceived as a gradual, inevitable process rather than an outright conquest.

The holding pattern is ending: what comes next?

The erosion of the territorial integrity principle signals the end of the global holding pattern and the beginning of an unravelling international order.

• The UN lacks enforcement power: Despite resolutions condemning annexations, the UN has no real ability to reverse them.
• Selective enforcement weakens legitimacy: The West condemns Russia while tolerating Israeli expansion and its own past interventions, creating a system where conquest is punished only when politically convenient.
• Geopolitical realignments favour strong states: With U.S. leadership wavering and the EU fragmented, powerful nations with expansionist ambitions—Russia, China, and possibly others—are testing the limits of what is possible.

If Ukraine is forced to accept territorial losses, it will send a clear message to the world: conquest works. If China successfully absorbs Taiwan without a major war, it will redefine the meaning of sovereignty. If the U.S. continues to intervene selectively, while denying its own history of expansionism, global norms will continue to erode.

Conclusion: from stalemate to shifting borders

The world is no longer simply in a holding pattern—it is moving towards a period of active geopolitical realignment. The assumption that territorial conquest is obsolete has already been disproven, and the question now is how far will this trend go?

Will we see a return to great power land grabs? Will smaller states band together to resist, or will they accept the new reality that borders are once again fluid? One thing is clear: the world is not standing still anymore. It is shifting, and the non-conquest era may be ending before our eyes.

Paul Budde

Democracy in crisis: what we can learn from Ancient Athens

As discussed above, modern democracy is under strain. Rising populism, political polarisation, disinformation, and the erosion of public trust in institutions all suggest a system in need of repair. But this is not the first time democracy has faced existential challenges. Ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, endured its own crises and ultimately offers enduring lessons that remain relevant today.

The dangers of demagoguery

Erica Benner, in her essay Democracy in Crisis: Lessons from Ancient Athens, highlights how demagogues gained power by flattering citizens and inflating their self-image, leading to reckless decisions—particularly in matters of war and empire. The Athenians learned, often too late, that democracy can be its own worst enemy when leaders manipulate public opinion for personal gain.

In our own era, where populist leaders thrive on division and the promise of easy solutions, this ancient warning resonates strongly. Democratic resilience requires citizens to be sceptical of charisma and to demand substance over spectacle.

Citizenship as ethical engagement

For the Athenians, political participation was not just a right but a moral duty. Citizenship was seen as a way of life—engaging in debates, voting, and holding office were all considered part of being a good and ethical person.

This is a sharp contrast with today’s political disengagement and cynicism. To revitalise democracy, we must reframe political engagement as an ethical and civic responsibility, not just an occasional act at the ballot box.

Political equality and open dialogue

The Athenians valued two key democratic principles: isonomia (equality before the law) and isegoria (equality of speech). Despite limitations by modern standards—excluding women, slaves, and foreigners—these ideals promoted a political culture of open debate and accountability.

Modern democracies can benefit by renewing their commitment to inclusive participation and the protection of dissenting voices. Political discourse should not be about winning, but about listening, testing ideas, and building consensus.

The potential of sortition

Athenian democracy employed sortition—selecting officials by lot—to prevent entrenched elites from monopolising power. This system fostered broader representation and trust in public institutions.

Today, sortition is seeing a revival in the form of citizens’ assemblies and deliberative panels. These innovations can complement electoral democracy by ensuring more diverse perspectives are considered in policymaking.

The role of crisis

Crises are not the end of democracy—they are often its testing ground. Athens survived the Peloponnesian War, internal strife, and the tyranny of the Thirty, and still managed to restore its democratic system.

AS I wrote in the article above, philosophers like Hannah Arendt and Jacques Derrida remind us that crises demand new political thinking and reveal the instability of existing structures. Democracy, like any living system, must adapt or risk collapse.

Conclusion: democratic renewal is possible

Ancient Athens teaches us that democracy is fragile, but also resilient—if citizens remain vigilant, engaged, and willing to reform what no longer serves the public good. In our time of democratic fatigue, the Athenian experience is a call to rethink what democracy means and how we practise it.

If democracy is to survive the current moment, it must not merely defend itself against crisis—it must learn from it.

Paul Budde

See also: What comes next after the end of the’ golden’ post-WWII era?

Socrates as leader in 2025

I asked ChatGPT what the Greek Philosopher Socrates (4th century BC) answer would be to the above mentioned article.

If Socrates were leading in 2025, he wouldn’t be a traditional leader at all—he’d be the ultimate challenger of power, constantly questioning those in authority rather than taking it himself. He’d reject the idea of leadership as a position of dominance and instead promote leadership as a process of collective wisdom, where the role of a leader is to help others think critically and examine their own beliefs.

What Socratic Leadership Would Look Like in 2025:

1. Radical Inquiry Instead of Dogma – Socrates would hold public forums (digital and physical) where he questions politicians, CEOs, and thought leaders on their assumptions. He’d challenge simplistic narratives, expose contradictions, and push for deeper ethical considerations. In a world obsessed with soundbites and AI-generated opinions, his emphasis on real thinking would be revolutionary.
2. Decentralised Power, Local Wisdom – He’d likely oppose centralised authority and instead promote small, self-governing communities where people engage in ongoing dialogue. He might even use digital tools (blockchain democracy?) to facilitate more participatory decision-making.
3. Skepticism of “Strongmen” and Populists – Given the rise of authoritarian and populist figures, Socrates would be the persistent thorn in their side, refusing to let them simplify complex issues into black-and-white slogans. He’d expose their manipulations, much like he exposed the sophists in Athens.
4. Truth-Seeking Over Popularity – Socrates never aimed to please the masses. He’d be a nightmare for social media influencers and politicians who rely on sensationalism. His goal would be to teach people how to think rather than what to think, encouraging deeper, more nuanced discourse.
5. Ethical AI and Technology – In today’s world, Socrates would be interrogating AI developers, policymakers, and social media companies on their ethical responsibilities. He’d ask:
   • Should AI be allowed to manipulate human behavior for profit?
   • What does justice look like in a digital society?
   • Are we losing wisdom in the flood of information?
6. Moral Leadership as a Daily Practice – Rather than “fixing” a crisis with grand reforms, Socrates would encourage constant self-examination. He’d push leaders to ask themselves daily:
   • Am I acting justly?
   • Am I pursuing truth or convenience?
   • Am I truly serving the people or just maintaining my position?

Uncomfortable But Necessary Conversations – Socrates would force dialogue on taboo subjects—climate inaction, wealth inequality, the corruption of media, the failure of democratic institutions—without allowing anyone to escape responsibility.