Disunited Nations: The Scramble for Power in an Ungoverned World

Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan explains why the 70-year American-led global order is ending and what the return to historical normalcy means for nations, businesses, and investors worldwide.

Key Takeaways

• The American-led global order was an historical anomaly created to fight the Soviets, not a permanent feature of international relations
• America's withdrawal from global leadership has already begun, with overseas troop deployments at their lowest levels since the Great Depression
• China, despite being the biggest beneficiary of globalization, faces catastrophic collapse due to demographics, energy dependence, and agricultural constraints
• Japan emerges as the clear winner in Asia due to its blue-water navy, strategic location, and lower resource requirements
• Traditional powerhouses like Germany will struggle without American security guarantees and global trade protection
• Regional powers like Turkey, France, and Argentina are best positioned to thrive in the new multipolar world
• The Middle East faces inevitable conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia once American presence fully withdraws
• Food security becomes a critical vulnerability as 80% of global calories depend on imported fertilizers and pesticides
• Nuclear proliferation risks increase dramatically as weak countries seek deterrents against stronger regional rivals

Timeline Overview

• 00:00–08:30 — Introduction and Background: Peter Zeihan's credentials as geopolitical strategist, his work at Stratfor developing analytical models, and why this book represents the most urgent of his planned series on global transformation
• 08:30–18:45 — The American-Led Order Creation: How fear of Soviet military superiority led America to create unprecedented global trade system, offering economic access in exchange for anti-Soviet alliance, making it the most atypical period in human history
• 18:45–28:20 — Political Inertia and Missed Opportunities: Why seven consecutive American presidents chose domestic focus over foreign policy leadership, from Bush Sr's failed "New World Order" through Trump's active destruction of remaining structures
• 28:20–35:40 — Signs of Order Collapse: Key indicators including 9/11 alliance failures, China's EP-3 incident showing ingratitude, and Euro creation attempting to carve out dollar-alternative economic sphere
• 35:40–45:15 — Turkey's Awakening and Regional Independence: How America's Syrian withdrawal forces Turkey to rediscover independent power projection, marking transition from American client state to autonomous regional actor
• 45:15–55:30 — Biggest Beneficiaries and Coming Losers: Germany and China as primary winners from trade liberalization, but also most vulnerable to security concerns returning, versus naturally advantaged countries like Japan, Turkey, France, and Argentina
• 55:30–01:15:45 — China's Systemic Vulnerabilities: Detailed analysis of China's demographic collapse, energy import dependence, agricultural fragility, and military limitations beyond first island chain, making continued growth impossible
• 01:15:45–01:28:20 — Japan's Strategic Advantages: Why Japan's blue-water navy, geographic position, and lower resource needs position it to dominate Asia once American protection ends and countries must secure their own trade routes
• 01:28:20–01:40:35 — Energy and Trade Route Security: How American naval withdrawal creates power vacuum in Persian Gulf, forcing Asian countries to compete militarily for oil access while only few nations can project meaningful force
• 01:40:35–01:55:20 — China's Agricultural Crisis and Political Implications: China's fertilizer dependence, loss of farmland to urbanization, and how food insecurity threatens Communist Party control, especially under Xi Jinping's centralized authority structure
• 01:55:20–02:05:40 — Middle East Power Struggle: Iran's imperial ambitions versus Saudi Arabia's defensive wealth, how proxy conflicts in Syria represent opening moves in inevitable direct confrontation once American stabilizing presence ends
• 02:05:40–End — Nuclear Proliferation and Regional Conflicts: Why weak countries like Saudi Arabia and Taiwan are most likely to acquire nuclear weapons as deterrents, fundamentally changing regional power dynamics and conflict risks

The End of the Liberal International Order

Peter Zeihan's central thesis revolves around understanding that the American-led global order was never intended to be permanent. Created in the aftermath of World War II, this system emerged from American fear of Soviet military superiority. When American and Soviet forces met at the end of the war, Americans realized the Soviets had conquered thirty times more territory in the same timeframe, demonstrating military capabilities that would have overwhelmed American forces in direct confrontation.

Rather than accept inevitable defeat, America developed an innovative solution: economic bribery on a global scale. The United States created a system where any country could access global markets, raw materials, and American consumer demand in exchange for joining the anti-Soviet alliance. This arrangement was unprecedented in human history because the dominant empire used its power to subsidize allies rather than extract wealth from them.

The system worked brilliantly for its intended purpose. Countries devastated by war eagerly joined an alliance that offered economic reconstruction and growth in exchange for military cooperation against the Soviet Union. This created both NATO in Europe and similar alliance structures across Asia, providing America with the global network needed to contain Soviet expansion.

What makes this period historically abnormal is that the chief imperial power didn't use its position for traditional imperial goals. Instead of extracting tribute or controlling trade for its own benefit, America subsidized global economic activity to maintain its alliance network. Even at the height of the British Empire, London couldn't offer such comprehensive global access because other powers always controlled critical trade routes or resource flows.

The Cold War's end in the early 1990s should have triggered a fundamental reassessment of this system. Instead, American leaders across seven consecutive presidential terms chose to ignore foreign policy in favor of domestic priorities. This wasn't necessarily wrong—Americans were understandably tired of living under nuclear annihilation threats—but it left the global system without strategic direction or maintenance.

Without American attention and investment, the order began deteriorating through benign neglect rather than deliberate destruction. Countries within the system assumed this arrangement was permanent, that America would continue providing security guarantees indefinitely while they focused on economic development. This assumption proved catastrophically wrong as American political priorities shifted toward domestic concerns.

Political Inertia and the Lost Decades

The transition from Cold War to post-Cold War represents one of history's greatest missed opportunities for strategic planning. George H.W. Bush attempted to initiate a national conversation about America's future role through his "New World Order" vision and "thousand points of light" rhetoric. He understood that America possessed an unprecedented opportunity to shape global affairs from a position of unmatched strength.

Bush Sr.'s defeat in 1992 marked the beginning of three decades of foreign policy drift. Bill Clinton explicitly campaigned as a domestic renewal candidate, viewing international affairs as a distraction from economic priorities. While Clinton achieved significant domestic accomplishments, particularly budget balancing, his administration provided no strategic framework for American global leadership.

The pattern continued through subsequent administrations. George W. Bush focused on the war on terror rather than comprehensive global strategy. Barack Obama explicitly sought to reduce American international commitments. Donald Trump actively attacked the remaining structures of the global order. Each president, regardless of party, chose to "escape history" rather than grapple with America's unprecedented global position.

This three-decade absence of strategic guidance created institutional drift across American foreign policy apparatus. Military, intelligence, and diplomatic professionals operated without clear presidential direction about priorities, objectives, or methods. Imagine performing any job for thirty years without meaningful guidance from leadership—the result would be organizational confusion, mission creep, and resource waste.

The consequences manifested in bloated defense spending without clear strategic focus, a rudderless State Department lacking diplomatic objectives, and an intelligence community trying to monitor everything rather than focusing on specific priorities. Without presidential guidance about what America should be or do globally, these institutions defaulted to Cold War approaches despite the Soviet Union's disappearance.

Bush Sr.'s final instruction—that the Soviet Union was no longer the enemy and America needed to prepare for a new world—was never followed up with concrete guidance about what that new world should look like. Instead of seizing the unipolar moment when every country looked to Washington for leadership, America chose silence, creating the current crisis of global order collapse.

Early Warning Signs and Accelerating Collapse

The first clear indication that the global order was unraveling came in 2001 with three nearly simultaneous events that revealed the system's fragility. The 9/11 attacks demonstrated that even stalwart allies wouldn't assist America in the ways Americans expected. Traditional allies proved reluctant to support American responses, revealing that alliance commitments were less robust than assumed.

The EP-3 incident with China proved particularly significant because it involved the country that had benefited most from American-led globalization. China's entire economic miracle depended on American naval protection of trade routes, American markets for exports, and American-guaranteed access to raw materials. Yet China's aggressive response to the spy plane incident showed ingratitude that shocked American defense planners.

The Euro's launch represented the third major challenge, appearing peaceful but actually designed to carve significant portions of the global economy away from dollar-based systems. Fifteen European countries that owed their freedom and prosperity to American sacrifices in World War II were essentially saying "thank you" by attempting to create an alternative monetary system to compete with American financial dominance.

These events collectively signaled that beneficiaries of the American system were no longer content with their positions. Rather than maintaining grateful alliance relationships, they sought to either exploit American protection while challenging American interests (China) or create alternative power centers to reduce dependence on American leadership (Europe).

Turkey's recent actions in northern Syria represent another crucial indicator of systemic breakdown. With American overseas military deployments at their lowest levels since the Great Depression, regional powers must choose between accepting subordinate positions or asserting independent influence. Turkey's intervention demonstrates how quickly countries can transition from American client states to autonomous regional actors.

The Syrian situation particularly illustrates the new dynamics. Turkey had assumed America would eventually topple Assad, maintaining regional stability through decisive intervention. When Obama declined and Trump announced withdrawal, Turkey faced a stark choice: accept Iranian and Russian dominance in their neighborhood or act independently to secure Turkish interests.

Turkey's decision to intervene represents broader awakening among regional powers that American protection is ending. Countries can no longer assume America will maintain favorable international environments. Instead, they must develop independent capabilities to secure their interests, marking the transition from American-managed global order to multipolar regional competition.

Winners and Losers in the New Order

The coming transformation will create clear winners and losers based on geographic, demographic, and resource fundamentals rather than current economic integration levels. Paradoxically, many countries that benefited most from globalization face the greatest challenges in the new environment, while previously constrained nations will find new opportunities for growth and influence.

China and Germany represent the biggest losers despite being globalization's primary beneficiaries. Both countries are geographically constrained and historically generated fear among neighbors whenever they achieved economic or military prominence. Their recent success depended entirely on American security guarantees removing traditional balance-of-power dynamics from international relations.

Germany's vulnerability stems from resource dependence and unfavorable demographics. Without American protection of trade routes, Germany cannot reliably access raw materials or export markets. The country's population is aging rapidly, reducing both consumption capacity and workforce availability. Most critically, Germany's economic success has once again made neighbors nervous about German dominance, recreating historical alliance patterns against German power.

China faces even more severe challenges across multiple dimensions. The one-child policy created a demographic disaster with too few young consumers and workers to support continued growth. Energy imports constitute 80-85% of consumption, making China vulnerable to trade route disruptions. Agricultural capacity cannot support current population levels without massive fertilizer and pesticide imports.

The winners share common characteristics: strategic geographic positions, favorable demographics, military capabilities appropriate to their challenges, and ability to access necessary resources and markets independently. Japan tops this list despite apparent vulnerabilities like resource dependence and population aging.

Japan's advantages stem from geographic position and naval capabilities. As an island nation on the first island chain, Japan faces fewer security threats while maintaining easier access to global markets. More importantly, Japan possesses the world's second-most powerful navy, capable of blue-water operations that China cannot match. This allows Japan to control trade routes and project power at times and places of its choosing.

Turkey, France, and Argentina also possess fundamental advantages for the new era. Turkey enjoys strategic depth, controls critical waterways, and possesses military capabilities suited to its regional challenges. France maintains geographic advantages, nuclear capabilities, and institutions capable of independent action. Argentina has vast agricultural capacity, strategic insulation, and resource wealth that become more valuable as global trade becomes more difficult.

China's Systemic Collapse

China's apparent strength masks fundamental weaknesses that make continued growth impossible once American protection ends. The country faces simultaneous crises across demographics, energy, agriculture, and military capacity that any one of which would be catastrophic, but together create an impossible situation for maintaining current living standards.

The demographic crisis stems directly from the one-child policy's long-term consequences. China now lacks the young consumers necessary for domestic demand-driven growth while simultaneously experiencing workforce aging that increases labor costs. The window for transitioning to a consumption-based economy has closed because the consumers simply don't exist in sufficient numbers.

This demographic challenge coincides with China's position as the world's largest energy importer, dependent on trade routes it cannot protect. China's navy might be capable of conquering Taiwan, but lacks the blue-water capacity to protect super tankers in the Persian Gulf or cargo shipments to Europe and North America. Without American naval protection, China's energy imports become hostage to any power capable of interdicting sea lanes.

Agricultural vulnerabilities may prove most immediately threatening to political stability. China requires massive imported inputs—fertilizer, pesticides, fuel—to maintain current food production levels. Historical analysis shows that modern agricultural techniques increased per-acre output by factors of four or more through chemical inputs. Removing these inputs could trigger proportional production declines, creating famine conditions for a population already too large for sustainable domestic agriculture.

The Chinese Communist Party has recognized these challenges for twenty-five years but consistently chose political control over necessary economic reforms. Every attempt at structural adjustment generated political backlash, leading to policy reversals that made underlying problems worse. Xi Jinping's response has been further political centralization, making himself personally responsible for all policy outcomes.

This centralization creates additional vulnerabilities as economic problems increasingly reflect on Xi's personal leadership rather than distributed institutional failures. The coronavirus response demonstrates how quickly public opinion can turn against leadership during crisis situations. With Xi having eliminated potential scapegoats through centralization, future crises will inevitably target his authority directly.

Most concerning, the Party has conclusively chosen political survival over economic reform, suggesting they will drive the system into the ground rather than accept necessary changes that might threaten their control. This guarantees that China's decline will be managed for political rather than economic optimization, making the ultimate collapse more severe than necessary.

Japan's Strategic Renaissance

Japan's position in the new world order represents one of the most dramatic reversals of fortune, transforming from a constrained American client state to the dominant Asian power. While superficial analysis might focus on Japan's demographic challenges and resource dependencies, deeper examination reveals advantages that position Japan to thrive in a multipolar world.

Japan's primary advantage lies in possessing the world's second-most powerful navy with genuine blue-water capabilities. Unlike China's coastal navy limited to roughly 1,000-mile range, Japanese naval forces can operate globally without requiring foreign base support. This capability becomes decisive in a world where countries must protect their own trade routes rather than relying on American guarantees.

Geographic positioning provides Japan with strategic benefits unavailable to mainland competitors. As an island nation on the first island chain, Japan faces fewer territorial threats while maintaining easier access to global markets. More importantly, Japanese naval forces can engage Chinese vessels at times and places of their choosing, maximizing tactical advantages while minimizing exposure to Chinese land-based support systems.

The contrast with China's constraints becomes stark when examining operational requirements. Chinese naval forces attempting to reach important areas must transit waters controlled by potentially hostile neighbors including South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan, and India. Japan's westward approach requires no such transit through contested areas—Japanese vessels can simply set sail for open ocean.

Japan's resource needs, while substantial, are more manageable than commonly assumed. Unlike China's massive population requiring enormous resource flows, Japan's smaller, more efficient economy can secure necessary inputs through selective partnerships and limited military operations. Japanese naval capabilities allow for efficient resource acquisition through controlled trade relationships rather than massive vulnerable import flows.

The demographic challenge that appears so threatening actually provides certain advantages in the new environment. Japan's aging population creates labor shortages that encourage automation and efficiency improvements, reducing resource requirements per capita. Additionally, slower population growth reduces pressure on limited agricultural and energy resources, making self-sufficiency more achievable.

Japan's technological base and manufacturing capabilities provide additional advantages for military modernization and resource efficiency. Unlike countries dependent on foreign expertise, Japan can develop and produce advanced military systems domestically, avoiding supply chain vulnerabilities that plague other nations during conflicts.

Most importantly, Japan's institutional memory of great power competition remains largely intact despite decades of American protection. Japanese strategic thinking never fully internalized dependence on American security guarantees in the way that European or Chinese planning has. This mental preparation for independent action provides Japan with clearer pathways to autonomous regional leadership.

Energy Security and Trade Route Control

The Persian Gulf region represents the critical test case for how resource flows will be managed without American protection. This area produces roughly 40% of globally traded oil while being accessible to very few countries with meaningful naval capabilities. The transition from American-guaranteed access to competitive scramble for resources will reshape global economic relationships.

Currently, very few countries possess naval capabilities sufficient to reach and operate effectively in the Persian Gulf. Britain and France maintain limited expeditionary capabilities, Turkey enjoys land-route access, Japan might reach the region under ideal conditions, and China can barely project force that far. This limited list of potential actors guarantees intense competition for finite resources.

The problem becomes more complex because oil is not a commodity that countries can simply wait to acquire after conflicts resolve. Industrial economies require continuous energy inputs to maintain basic functions including electricity generation, transportation, and manufacturing. Any disruption to supply chains creates immediate economic and political crises that force rapid responses.

American withdrawal creates a situation where three to five different naval powers might simultaneously attempt to secure oil supplies while two major producers—Iran and Saudi Arabia—engage in direct conflict. Rather than the current system where American naval presence ensures sufficient supply for all parties, the new arrangement guarantees zero-sum competition where some countries will face energy shortages.

The scope of American commitment to Persian Gulf security demonstrates how difficult replacement will be. America maintained aircraft carrier battle groups in the region almost continuously from 1950 to 2015, providing deterrent effects no other country can replicate. A single American carrier battle group possesses nearly as much naval power as the combined fleets of all other nations, making American withdrawal impossible to compensate through alliance arrangements.

Regional powers attempting to fill the vacuum will face additional complications from overlapping and conflicting interests. Countries securing oil for their domestic needs may find themselves competing with formal allies who face similar resource requirements. Without American coordination, these competitions can easily escalate to military conflicts that further disrupt supply reliability.

The implications extend beyond simple resource access to fundamental questions about industrial capacity and economic sustainability. Countries that cannot secure reliable energy imports face not just economic recession but potential industrial collapse and social instability. This creates powerful incentives for aggressive action that may destabilize the entire region.

The Coming Middle East Conflagration

The Middle East without American stabilization will revert to historical patterns of conflict between regional powers, specifically Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both countries have been building toward confrontation for decades, with American presence providing the only constraint on their natural antagonisms. Syria's civil war represents merely the opening phase of this broader struggle for regional dominance.

Iran's strategic position reflects both historical strength and contemporary weakness. Historically, Persian empires regularly expanded to control most of the Middle East through inclusive, cosmopolitan governance that encouraged local populations to identify as Persian. Modern Iran lacks this inclusive capacity, having become an isolated Shia theocracy focused on ideological purity rather than practical governance.

The transformation began during the Age of Exploration when European naval capabilities allowed direct access to Asian markets, bypassing traditional Persian middleman roles. This eliminated Iran's central position in global trade networks, destroying the economic foundation for cosmopolitan empire. Oil discovery a century ago temporarily restored Iranian wealth but created dependence on a single commodity rather than diverse economic activity.

Iranian strategy under the Ayatollahs seeks to restore historical dominance through chaos creation rather than positive governance. Unable to offer attractive alternatives to current regional arrangements, Iran works to undermine existing systems, hoping that general instability will allow Iranian power to rise by default. This approach generates widespread resentment while failing to build sustainable influence.

Saudi Arabia represents the opposite extreme: a medieval despotism that controls vast oil wealth without developing institutional capacity for governance or military effectiveness. The Saudi royal family treats the entire country as personal property, importing foreign workers for all technical tasks while maintaining citizens in dependent, unproductive roles.

Saudi strategic thinking reflects this fundamental weakness through acceptance that they cannot actually rule the region effectively. Instead, Saudi policy focuses on preventing Iranian dominance through whatever means necessary, including willingness to destroy regional infrastructure and governance systems rather than allow Iranian control.

The destructive potential of Saudi policy should not be underestimated. Conservative estimates suggest Saudi Arabia possesses over $2 trillion in sovereign wealth funds, providing enormous capacity for supporting militant groups and destabilizing operations. Historical Saudi support for organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda demonstrates both capability and willingness to employ extreme violence against regional opponents.

The current level of proxy conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan represents what occurs during a moment of relative calm when Saudis still hope for continued American engagement. Once they abandon hope for American stabilization, Saudi policy will escalate dramatically as they attempt to prevent Iranian regional dominance through chaos creation.

Nuclear Proliferation and Regional Arms Races

The breakdown of American security guarantees creates powerful incentives for nuclear weapon acquisition among countries that cannot achieve security through conventional means. Historical analysis shows that nuclear weapons are typically developed by countries that doubt their ability to win conventional conflicts, making current regional power imbalances extremely dangerous.

Saudi Arabia represents the most immediate proliferation concern due to both capability and incentive structures. In a direct conventional military confrontation with Iran, Saudi forces would likely suffer decisive defeat despite superior equipment. Iranian military personnel actually know how to fight, while Saudi military effectiveness remains questionable outside air-conditioned environments.

Saudi nuclear acquisition would likely occur through purchase rather than indigenous development, with Pakistan and Israel representing the most probable sources. Both countries maintain complex relationships with Saudi Arabia that could facilitate weapons transfers under appropriate circumstances. Pakistan particularly needs Saudi financial support, while Israel shares Saudi concerns about Iranian regional ambitions.

The timeline for Saudi nuclear acquisition could be extremely rapid—possibly weeks rather than years—once the decision is made. Unlike indigenous development programs that require decades of technical advancement, weapons purchases only require financial resources and political agreements. Saudi Arabia possesses more than sufficient wealth to acquire functional nuclear arsenals quickly.

Chinese vulnerability creates additional proliferation risks across Asia. Taiwan faces existential threats from Chinese aggression while lacking conventional capabilities for effective resistance. Taiwan's advanced technological base and extensive nuclear infrastructure provide the foundation for rapid weapons development once political decisions are made.

The pattern extends globally as American alliance commitments become less credible. Poland faces potential Russian aggression, South Korea confronts North Korean threats, and numerous other countries find themselves exposed to regional rivals without reliable superpower protection. Each of these situations creates incentives for independent nuclear development.

The proliferation cascade could accelerate rapidly once initial threshold crossings occur. Countries observing neighbors acquiring nuclear capabilities will face powerful pressure to develop their own deterrents rather than accept permanent strategic inferiority. Regional arms races could encompass entire continents within relatively short timeframes.

American attempts to control proliferation become less effective as overall American global presence declines. Non-proliferation treaties and inspection regimes depend ultimately on American willingness to enforce compliance through economic sanctions or military action. As American priorities shift toward domestic concerns, enforcement becomes less reliable, reducing deterrent effects on potential proliferators.

The implications extend beyond simple weapons numbers to fundamental questions about crisis stability and conflict management. Regional nuclear arsenals typically lack sophisticated command and control systems, increasing risks of accidental use or crisis escalation. Without experienced nuclear powers providing stability through diplomatic intervention, regional conflicts could escalate quickly beyond conventional limits.

Zeihan's analysis suggests that the combination of American withdrawal, regional power imbalances, and technological accessibility creates conditions for widespread nuclear proliferation that will fundamentally alter international relations. Countries that historically relied on alliance relationships for security will increasingly turn to independent deterrent capabilities, making the coming decades far more dangerous than the relatively stable Cold War period.

Practical Implications

• Diversify supply chains away from China immediately — China's demographic, energy, and agricultural vulnerabilities make it an unreliable long-term manufacturing base regardless of political considerations
• Prioritize investments in countries with favorable geography and demographics — Focus on nations like Japan, Turkey, France, and Argentina that can function independently of global trade guarantees
• Develop regional rather than global business strategies — The era of seamless global supply chains is ending; success requires building resilient regional networks with redundant suppliers
• Increase inventory buffers and local production capacity — Just-in-time delivery systems become liability when trade routes face military threats or political disruptions
• Avoid long-term investments in energy-dependent economies — Countries requiring massive energy imports (like China and Germany) face fundamental sustainability challenges as trade protection ends
• Plan for significant food price volatility — 80% of global food production depends on imported fertilizers and pesticides that become vulnerable to trade disruptions
• Establish currency hedging strategies for emerging regional powers — Countries like Turkey and Argentina may experience rapid economic transitions that create both risks and opportunities
• Consider precious metals and agricultural land investments — Hard assets become more valuable as global financial systems fragment and trade becomes less reliable
• Develop relationships with naval powers and coastal nations — Countries that can protect their own trade routes (Japan, UK, France) will have significant advantages in resource access
• Prepare for rapid geopolitical shifts in the Middle East — Iran-Saudi conflict will disrupt energy markets and create refugee flows that affect neighboring regions
• Build business models that can operate in fragmented markets — Global integration is reversing; successful companies will need to function effectively in multiple separate regional markets
• Invest in automation and efficiency technologies — Labor shortages and supply chain disruptions will reward companies that can produce more with fewer inputs
• Establish contingency plans for nuclear proliferation scenarios — Regional nuclear arsenals will create new types of political and economic risks that require different management approaches
• Focus on food and energy security investments — Basic necessities become premium investments as global distribution systems become less reliable
• Avoid exposure to countries with unsustainable demographics — Aging populations without sufficient young workers (China, Germany, South Korea) face structural economic decline
• Build relationships with emerging regional hegemons — Countries like Japan in Asia or France in Europe will have increasing influence over their neighbors' economic and security affairs