Geopolitics in 2035: Contestation and Transformation
Geopolitics in 2035: Contestation and Transformation
The global landscape stands at a precipice, defined by accelerating change, the resurgence of great power rivalry, and the palpable erosion of the norms and institutions that characterized the post-Cold War era. Pervasive uncertainty clouds the future global order, with the coming decade poised to be more contested, fragmented, and potentially more revolutionary in its political implications than is perhaps generally appreciated. We are navigating a period where established patterns of international relations, social dynamics, and economic interaction are undergoing profound shifts. The relative stability of the recent past is giving way to a more volatile and unpredictable environment.
This report endeavors to provide a detailed, synthesized analysis of the likely geopolitical landscape circa 2035. Drawing upon a range of authoritative foresight studies and expert assessments, its purpose is to identify the key structural forces, emerging dynamics, potential flashpoints, geoeconomic shifts, and overarching challenges that will shape the world over the next ten to fifteen years. By examining plausible future scenarios, the analysis aims to equip policymakers, strategists, and informed citizens with a framework for understanding the contours of a world marked by increasing contestation and transformation. The goal is not precise prediction, an impossibility amidst such flux, but rather to illuminate the range of possibilities and the critical factors that will influence the trajectory ahead.
Sources and Studies
The insights and forecasts presented in this report are grounded in the comprehensive analyses conducted by leading governmental intelligence bodies, international organizations, think tanks, and strategic advisory firms. These sources employ rigorous methodologies, including expert consultations, data analysis, and scenario modeling, to assess long-term global trends. The primary studies informing this analysis include:
US National Intelligence Council (NIC): Global Trends 2040: A More Contested World and its predecessor, Global Trends 2035: Paradox of Progress. The NIC's reports are notable for their extensive consultation process with diverse global experts.
Atlantic Council: The Welcome to 2035 expert survey, providing quantitative probability estimates on key geopolitical risks, and the Three Worlds in 2035 scenario analysis exploring distinct future pathways.
RANE (Risk Assistance Network + Exchange): The Decade Forecast 2025-2035, offering insights into multipolarity and major power dynamics.
World Economic Forum (WEF): The annual Global Risks Report (specifically referencing findings available for the 2025 edition), and related reports such as Open but Secure: Europe’s Path to Strategic Interdependence 2025.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Global Scenarios 2035, exploring futures shaped by digitalization, geopolitics, and societal shifts.
Stratfor: The Decade Forecast 2025-2035, analyzing the evolution of the multipolar system.
Other Key Inputs: Analyses from institutions such as Chatham House, RAND Corporation, Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), KPMG, Lazard, McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and various specialized academic and think tank reports focusing on energy transitions, technological impacts, regional dynamics, and security trends.
Evolving World Order
The international system is undergoing a fundamental restructuring, moving decisively away from the unipolar moment that followed the Cold War towards a more complex and contested multipolar configuration. This transition is characterized by deepening fragmentation, intensifying great power rivalry, and the emergence of new patterns of alignment and influence.
Multipolarity Emerges
The defining characteristic of the geopolitical landscape leading into 2035 is the consolidation of a multipolar system. This signifies an environment where no single great power possesses the capacity or the will to unilaterally dictate the global agenda. The era of American dominance that commenced after the Cold War is drawing to a close, giving way to a landscape populated by a wider range of influential actors.
This shift is accompanied by increasing fragmentation at multiple levels. The established rules-based international order, particularly institutions like the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) formed in the mid-20th century, is experiencing a significant erosion of efficacy and relevance. Major powers increasingly disregard international rules and norms when they conflict with perceived national interests, leading to a more directionless, chaotic, and volatile international system. Nationalism is resurgent globally, as states turn inward, sometimes casting blame on external actors or marginalized groups, further undermining international cooperation. Geopolitical and political uncertainties, once considered abstract risks, are now having tangible effects on strategic and operational decisions for businesses and governments alike.
The causal link between the redistribution of global power and institutional decay is apparent. As the unipolar dominance of the United States wanes and other powers, notably China, along with influential middle powers, rise, the institutions largely designed and upheld during the period of US preeminence face challenges to their legitimacy and effectiveness. This creates power vacuums and spaces for competition, where actors pursue narrower, often conflicting, interests, resulting in a more contested, uncertain, and conflict-prone international environment.
US-China Competition
The primary dynamic shaping the global order towards 2035 is the intensifying strategic competition between the United States and China. This rivalry permeates nearly every domain – economic, technological, military, and ideological – though it does not necessarily replicate the rigid bipolarity of the Cold War. It is a complex, multifaceted contestation that is forcing other nations to navigate carefully and is reshaping global alignments.
Economically, a significant reconfiguration of trade and investment flows is underway. The United States, driven by geopolitical concerns and a desire for supply chain resilience, has demonstrably shifted trade away from China towards other partners, including Mexico, Vietnam, and potentially India. This trend towards "de-risking" or partial decoupling is contributing to broader trade fragmentation. China's trade practices, such as the alleged dumping of excess capacity in goods like steel and electric vehicles and the use of economic leverage, are also prompting nations to reassess their dependencies and seek alternatives, sometimes favoring Western, US-centric supply chains. Proposed protectionist measures, such as significant US tariffs on imports from China and potentially other trading partners, could dramatically accelerate this rewiring of global commerce, potentially triggering retaliatory actions and further destabilizing trade patterns.
Technologically, the competition is particularly fierce. Dominance in foundational technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, quantum computing, and semiconductors is viewed as critical not only for economic prosperity but increasingly through the lens of national security. This "techno-nationalism" is driving efforts to secure supply chains, control exports of sensitive technologies, and potentially foster distinct technological blocs aligned with either the US or China. Such divisions threaten to jeopardize international scientific collaboration and equitable access to technological advancements.
Militarily, the focus remains intense. China's ongoing military modernization program, particularly the rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal towards potential parity with the US and Russia by 2035, and its assertive posture in the Indo-Pacific, especially concerning Taiwan, are central preoccupations for US defense planning.
While the prospect of the world dividing into distinct US-aligned and China-aligned blocs exists (predicted by 47% of experts in one survey), the reality by 2035 may be more complex. The gravitational pull of the US-China rivalry is undeniable, but it does not necessarily compel all other nations into fixed orbits. Many countries, particularly influential middle powers, are actively pursuing strategies of "multi-alignment" or non-alignment, seeking to maintain relationships with both sides and maximize their own autonomy and advantage. Even traditional US allies, especially in Asia, exhibit reluctance to formally take sides in the competition. This suggests that the future geopolitical geometry will likely be more intricate than a simple bipolar divide, characterized by shifting alignments and a constant maneuvering for position by a diverse range of actors.
Russia's Role
Russia's trajectory towards 2035 appears significantly shaped by the outcomes and consequences of its war in Ukraine. Forecasts generally suggest that Moscow is likely to emerge from the conflict – potentially concluding via a negotiated settlement around 2026 according to some scenarios – in a weakened state, facing considerable economic headwinds, technological lags, and persistent demographic challenges.
Despite these constraints, Russia is expected to remain a significant geopolitical actor, albeit with a potentially altered strategic focus. Moscow will likely prioritize consolidating any territorial gains from the war, rebuilding its depleted military capabilities, and asserting influence within its perceived sphere of interest, particularly in the post-Soviet space and the Arctic. The "Arctic 2035" strategy underscores the high priority placed on developing the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and exploiting Arctic resources, potentially creating new friction points with other Arctic states and NATO. However, reasserting influence in other regions, such as the Caucasus, may prove challenging due to the competing interests of actors like Turkey and China.
The relationship with China remains a critical variable. While often grouped with China, Iran, and North Korea as an emerging "axis" challenging the Western-led order (with 46% of surveyed experts anticipating a formal alliance among these four by 2035), the long-term durability and depth of the Sino-Russian partnership are questionable. Potential friction could arise from China's growing dominance in Central Asia, diverging economic interests, or future leadership changes in Moscow. The partnership may prove more opportunistic and based on shared opposition to US influence rather than a deep, enduring military or ideological alignment.
Lacking broad-based economic strength or conventional military superiority over potential adversaries like NATO, Russia is likely to continue relying heavily on specific instruments of power. Nuclear weapons remain central to its defense strategy, including potentially destabilizing concepts like "escalate-to-de-escalate" involving limited nuclear first use to coerce an adversary. Furthermore, Russia will likely continue to employ asymmetric tactics, including sophisticated information warfare, cyber operations, and leveraging its position as a major energy supplier (though the global energy transition poses long-term challenges to this leverage). This suggests a future role for Russia not as a global agenda-setter, but perhaps as a persistent regional power focused on disruption and safeguarding its core interests through a narrower, more specialized toolkit.
Europe's Crossroads
The European Union finds itself at a critical juncture, compelled by profound shifts in the global environment to reassess its role and capabilities. The waning reliability of the US security guarantee under certain political scenarios, coupled with intensifying geopolitical competition and economic pressures from both the US and China, has catalyzed a drive towards greater "strategic autonomy" or "strategic interdependence". This involves concerted efforts to bolster European defense capabilities and industrial cooperation, develop more assertive geoeconomic tools to protect its interests, and strategically manage its external dependencies.
However, Europe faces formidable challenges on this path. Economic growth has lagged behind the US and China, hampered by factors like high energy prices and demographic pressures. Internal divisions among member states on strategic priorities and the very definition of "strategic autonomy" – sometimes viewed as potentially anti-American – persist. Critical vulnerabilities exist in key technological sectors, such as electronics manufacturing, where Europe's global share has significantly declined, potentially threatening defense readiness and industrial resilience. Furthermore, the EU grapples with the inherent difficulty of balancing its foundational commitment to openness, multilateralism, and a rules-based order with the increasingly realist demands of a geopolitical era that often prioritizes national security, protectionism, and hard power considerations.
Europe's geopolitical role by 2035 remains contingent on its ability to overcome these challenges and act cohesively. Scenarios range widely. One possibility involves the EU strengthening its role as the European pillar within NATO, effectively compensating for any reduction in US engagement. Another path could see Europe leading international coalitions on specific global challenges, such as climate change, particularly in a scenario triggered by shared tragedy. Conversely, a failure to achieve greater unity and capability could lead to a more fragmented European landscape, a "Patchwork" where the continent becomes more of an arena for, rather than an actor in, great power competition. Ultimately, the EU's influence will depend on its capacity to align its internal market power with external strategic objectives and navigate the complex trade-offs between interdependence and autonomy. The core challenge lies in adapting its traditionally liberal, rules-based model to a world increasingly defined by power politics, without sacrificing its core values or economic dynamism.
Rise of Middle Powers
A crucial feature of the emerging multipolar landscape is the growing influence and agency of "middle powers" – a diverse group of states situated below the superpowers but possessing significant capacity and willingness to act on the international stage. Countries often cited in this category include India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and others. These nations are increasingly unwilling to be passive objects of great power politics ("on the menu") and are actively seeking to shape regional dynamics and pursue their own interests.
A defining characteristic of many middle powers in the current climate is their pursuit of strategic flexibility through "multi-alignment" or a form of modern non-alignment. Rather than committing firmly to either a US-led or China-led bloc, they seek to maintain constructive relationships with multiple major powers, maximizing their room for maneuver and extracting benefits from competing suitors. Expert surveys indicate a growing preference for neutrality or non-alignment in countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa, and even potentially among segments in traditional Western allies like Germany.
India stands out as a particularly significant "wildcard". Projected to possess the world's third-largest economy and a massive population by 2035, its potential global influence is immense. However, significant domestic economic and social challenges may constrain its ability or willingness to project power globally. India's strategic choices regarding the US-China competition – whether it leans more decisively towards the US-led grouping, maintains its traditional strategic autonomy, or charts a different course – will have major repercussions for the regional and global balance of power.
Other middle powers are also carving out distinct roles. Turkey and Japan, for instance, are expected to take on greater responsibility for managing security issues in their respective regions, reflecting a potential trend of reduced direct intervention by the US and Europe in secondary theaters. Powers like Brazil, India, and South Africa leverage platforms such as the G20 and BRICS to advance their agendas and shape global governance debates.
The collective weight and strategic orientation of these middle powers represent a critical uncertainty shaping the 2035 landscape. Their inclination towards non-alignment could act as a significant counterweight to bipolar pressures, potentially hindering the formation of rigid, Cold War-style blocs. Instead, their actions might foster a more complex, multi-layered international system characterized by issue-specific coalitions, regionalized orders, and a persistent negotiation of interests among a wider array of influential state actors.
Conflict Risks
The shift towards a more contested multipolar order, coupled with technological advancements and unresolved regional tensions, elevates the risk of conflict in the coming decade. Expert assessments point towards a heightened probability of major power confrontations, nuclear proliferation, and a transformation in the very nature of warfare.
Great Power War Risk
A sobering consensus exists among many geopolitical analysts regarding the increased potential for major conflict by 2035. The Atlantic Council's 2025 survey of international security experts revealed alarming perceptions: 40 percent anticipate another world war, defined as a multifront conflict among great powers, within the next decade. This reflects a growing recognition that the systems of diplomacy and deterrence that maintained relative peace among major powers are weakening.
Taiwan remains arguably the most dangerous flashpoint with the potential to ignite a direct US-China conflict. A striking 65 percent of experts surveyed by the Atlantic Council believe China will attempt to forcibly reunify with Taiwan by 2035. This perception aligns with analyses of China's military buildup and political timelines set by its leadership.
The risk of a direct military clash between Russia and NATO is also perceived as significant and growing. Forty-five percent of the same expert cohort anticipate such a conflict within the next ten years, a marked increase from previous surveys. While Russia may emerge weakened from the Ukraine war, its revanchist ambitions, reliance on nuclear signaling, and the potential for miscalculation along NATO's eastern flank maintain a high level of risk.
Future conflicts are unlikely to be confined to traditional land, sea, and air domains. Experts anticipate warfare extending into space (45% probability) and cyberspace becoming an increasingly critical battlefield. Furthermore, the nature of conflict may shift towards disruptive attacks targeting critical infrastructure, societal cohesion, and government functions, rather than solely focusing on defeating enemy forces through conventional military means.
The following table summarizes key probability estimates from the Atlantic Council's "Welcome to 2035" survey, providing a quantitative snapshot of expert risk perceptions:
Table 1: Expert Perceptions of Major Conflict Risks by 2035 (Atlantic Council Survey)
Source: Atlantic Council, Welcome to 2035 (Feb 2025)
This data underscores the gravity of the current geopolitical moment, where the potential for large-scale, high-tech, and even nuclear conflict is seen as a tangible possibility within the next decade by a significant portion of the expert community.
Nuclear Risks
The global nuclear landscape is entering a new, more complex, and potentially more dangerous era, often termed the "third nuclear age". This period departs significantly from the relative stability and arms control focus of the post-Cold War (second nuclear) age and bears a closer resemblance to the multipolar dynamics and heightened tensions of the early Cold War, but with additional complexities. Strategic stability is expected to rely less on negotiated treaties and transparency measures, which are becoming increasingly difficult to achieve, and more on the maintenance of credible deterrent postures by nuclear-armed states.
The most significant structural change is China's emergence as a nuclear peer alongside the United States and Russia. Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented expansion and modernization of its nuclear arsenal, moving away from its traditional "lean and effective" posture. Estimates suggest China could possess around 1,000 strategic warheads by 2030 and potentially 1,500 by 2035, constructing hundreds of new missile silos and advancing its sea- and air-based delivery systems. This creates, for the first time, a tripolar nuclear dynamic among the major powers, fundamentally altering strategic calculations for deterrence, arms control, and crisis stability. The United States and its allies now face the challenge of deterring two near-peer nuclear adversaries simultaneously.
Concurrent with this great power dynamic shift, the risks of nuclear proliferation are escalating. There is a high degree of expert consensus (88%) that at least one additional state will acquire nuclear weapons by 2035. Iran is viewed as the most likely candidate, with nearly three-quarters of surveyed experts predicting it will become a nuclear-weapons state within the decade. Significant minorities also foresee the possibility of Saudi Arabia, South Korea, or even Japan pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities, likely driven by regional security concerns and doubts about the reliability of extended deterrence commitments.
Alarmingly, the perceived risk of nuclear weapons actually being used has risen. Nearly half (48%) of experts surveyed anticipate the use of nuclear weapons by at least one actor by 2035. Russia, with its doctrine potentially envisioning limited nuclear first strikes to de-escalate a conventional conflict on favorable terms, and North Korea are often cited as potential users. The combination of a more complex multipolar nuclear environment, deteriorating relations between major powers, active proliferation pathways, and potentially more aggressive nuclear doctrines significantly increases the challenges of maintaining deterrence and raises the specter of nuclear use to a level not seen in decades. Old arms control frameworks appear ill-suited to this new reality, and establishing new mechanisms for stability in a tripolar or multipolar nuclear world remains a daunting challenge.
Warfare Transformation
The character of warfare itself is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the rapid development and integration of emerging and disruptive technologies. By 2035, the battlefield is expected to be increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous systems, advanced cyber and space capabilities, and hypersonic weapons, leading to conflicts potentially fought at unprecedented speed, scale, and complexity.
Artificial Intelligence is becoming a foundational element across military domains. It is enhancing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) through automated data processing and target recognition; enabling more sophisticated command, control, communications, computers, ISR (C4ISR) systems; powering autonomous weapons platforms; and driving both cyber defense and offensive operations. The potential development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – AI capable of performing any intellectual task a human can – or even Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) before or shortly after 2035 represents a revolutionary possibility. Such advancements could lead to machine-led strategic decision-making, fundamentally altering command structures and the very nature of military leadership.
Autonomous systems are proliferating rapidly. Unmanned vehicles – aerial (UAVs), ground (UGVs), surface (USVs), and subsurface (UUVs) – are becoming ubiquitous, capable of performing missions deemed too dull, dirty, or dangerous for humans, from logistics and mine clearance to reconnaissance and potentially direct engagement. The prospect of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) – machines capable of selecting and engaging targets without direct human intervention – becoming operational by 2040 is considered plausible, despite significant ethical and legal concerns surrounding accountability and control. Furthermore, the ability to deploy coordinated "swarms" of interconnected unmanned systems, capable of adaptive tactics, presents novel offensive and defensive possibilities.
Hypersonic weapons, capable of traveling at speeds greater than Mach 5 with high maneuverability, pose significant challenges to existing air and missile defense systems. Combined with advances in sensors and AI-enabled targeting, these and other long-range precision strike systems promise greater speed, accuracy, range, and lethality, primarily for advanced militaries but with diffusion likely over time. Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) also hold disruptive potential if challenges related to power and deployment can be overcome.
Cyberspace has solidified its position as a critical warfighting domain, used by states for espionage, disruption, and furthering strategic objectives. Space, too, is increasingly vital for military operations, relied upon for communication, navigation, timing, and ISR, making space assets potential targets and space itself a potential arena for conflict.
The cumulative impact of these technological shifts suggests a future battlefield where information dominance and network connectivity (C4ISR) may become more decisive than sheer firepower. Conflicts are likely to be faster, more data-intensive, and waged simultaneously across multiple domains (physical, cyber, space, information). While potentially more lethal due to the precision and speed of new weapons, these conflicts may not necessarily be more decisive, as adversaries adapt and countermeasures evolve. A significant challenge lies in ensuring that military doctrine, ethical frameworks, and legal structures keep pace with the relentless speed of technological change.
Geoeconomics
The intertwining of economics and geopolitics – geoeconomics – is becoming increasingly pronounced. Global trade patterns are being rewired, technological supremacy is a core battleground, and access to critical resources for the energy transition is emerging as a new arena for strategic competition.
Trade Shifts
The era of unrestrained globalization, characterized primarily by the pursuit of economic efficiency, is giving way to a more fragmented and politically influenced global trade system. Persistent supply chain disruptions, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical conflicts, combined with rising nationalism and great power rivalry, are catalyzing a significant shift towards regionalization, "nearshoring" (moving production closer to home markets), and "friend-shoring" (prioritizing trade with politically aligned partners). Analysis indicates a decrease in the average geopolitical distance of trade, suggesting that countries are trading more with nations they perceive as politically closer, even if the average geographic distance remains stable or slightly increases.
This transformation presents both risks and opportunities. Scenario-based forecasts for global trade by 2035 vary dramatically depending on the intensity of geopolitical friction and fragmentation. A baseline projection anticipates trade reaching approximately $87 trillion, while a pessimistic scenario marked by deep fragmentation could see it stagnate around $71 trillion. Conversely, an optimistic scenario with easing tensions could push trade beyond $105 trillion. This wide range underscores the profound impact that political choices and the management of geopolitical tensions will have on global economic integration and prosperity.
Emerging economic centers, particularly in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, are poised to become increasingly important hubs in the reconfigured global trade network. Regional trade blocs, such as within ASEAN, are showing signs of deepening integration. Concurrently, governments are increasingly employing geoeconomic tools – including tariffs, export controls on sensitive technologies, and investment screening mechanisms – as instruments of statecraft to pursue strategic objectives and mitigate perceived vulnerabilities.
This evolving landscape does not necessarily signify the end of globalization, but rather its transformation into a different form – a "re-globalization". This new phase is characterized less by pure market logic and more by geopolitical alignments, regional concentrations, supply chain resilience considerations, and the strategic management of interdependence. Businesses and nations must adapt to this more complex, fragmented, and potentially less predictable trading environment.
Technology Geopolitics
Technological leadership is increasingly recognized as a fundamental pillar of national power, security, and geopolitical influence, moving far beyond its role as a mere economic driver. Consequently, the development, deployment, and governance of critical technologies have become central arenas of strategic competition, particularly between the United States and China.
The race for dominance in Artificial Intelligence is paramount, driven by the perceived economic advantages, national security benefits, and global influence conferred by leadership in this transformative field. Concerns persist in the West about the pace of Chinese advancements potentially challenging US preeminence in AI development and deployment. The possibility, however uncertain, of achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or even Superintelligence (ASI) within the 2035 timeframe adds a layer of profound strategic uncertainty, with potentially revolutionary implications for economics, governance, and warfare.
Biotechnology, encompassing fields like genome editing and synthetic biology, is emerging as another critical geopolitical frontier. Its potential to revolutionize medicine, agriculture, and materials science translates into significant economic and strategic value. However, the dual-use nature of biotechnology also raises serious security concerns, including the potential for misuse in developing novel biological weapons. This necessitates careful consideration of ethical governance frameworks and international cooperation, although such cooperation may be challenged by geopolitical tensions. Indeed, some future scenarios envision a near-miss bioweapon catastrophe acting as a catalyst for enhanced global collaboration in this domain.
Control over semiconductor manufacturing and supply chains remains a focal point of geostrategic competition, given their foundational role across virtually all advanced technologies. Efforts by the US and its allies to restrict China's access to cutting-edge semiconductor technology and manufacturing equipment highlight the strategic importance attached to this sector.
This intense competition is fostering the development of distinct technological ecosystems, or "technological blocs," often centered around the US and China. These blocs may develop divergent technical standards, operate within separate data governance regimes, and limit the flow of technology and talent between them. Such fragmentation could impede global scientific progress, hinder innovation, and create significant challenges for multinational corporations navigating differing regulatory environments. The politicization and securitization of technology are thus reshaping innovation landscapes and international relations.
Critical Resources
The global transition towards cleaner energy sources, driven by climate change mitigation goals and technological advancements in renewables, is creating a new geopolitical landscape centered on the supply of critical minerals. Achieving ambitious targets, such as significant shares of wind and solar power in electricity generation by 2035, necessitates a dramatic increase in the demand for materials like lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and rare earth elements. Projections indicate potential supply-demand mismatches for key minerals like lithium and copper by 2035, even considering announced projects.
While global geological reserves of these minerals are generally considered sufficient, the geographical concentration of mining and, particularly, processing capabilities creates significant geopolitical risks and potential dependencies. China currently holds a dominant position in the refining and processing stages for many critical minerals, granting it considerable market leverage. Concerns are rising over the use of trade restrictions, such as export controls implemented by China, as tools of geoeconomic statecraft in the critical minerals sector.
This dynamic is intensifying international competition for access to mineral resources and secure supply chains. It is driving exploration and potential exploitation in new frontiers, such as Greenland's rare earth deposits, and elevating the strategic importance of resource-rich regions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This competition could, in turn, exacerbate instability in countries with weak governance but significant mineral wealth, potentially creating new "resource curse" dynamics or fueling conflict.
The energy transition fundamentally redefines traditional notions of energy security. While the old paradigm focused on the continuous flow of fossil fuels, security in the green transition era relates more to securing the materials and components needed to build and maintain renewable energy infrastructure. Supply disruptions for critical minerals are less likely to cause immediate energy shortages (as renewable installations can continue operating) but can significantly slow down the pace of the energy transition itself. This shift creates a new resource geography with its own unique set of dependencies, vulnerabilities, and potential leverage points, mirroring some aspects of historical fossil fuel politics but involving different materials, actors, and supply chain structures.
Global Challenges
Beyond specific geopolitical rivalries and geoeconomic shifts, several profound, cross-cutting challenges will significantly shape the global environment leading up to 2035. These include the accelerating impacts of climate change, deepening societal divisions amplified by misinformation, and the growing strain on global governance structures.
Climate Change Threat
Climate change is unequivocally transitioning from a primarily environmental concern to a core driver of global instability and a significant security threat. The physical impacts are projected to intensify by 2035, with more frequent and severe extreme weather events (heatwaves, floods, droughts, storms), persistent water and food insecurity, and accelerating sea-level rise altering coastlines and displacing populations. Certain regions, such as the Middle East, Central Asia, South and Southeast Asia, and low-lying island states, are identified as particularly vulnerable to these effects. One plausible, albeit deeply concerning, scenario for 2035 envisions a world dominated by a "Climate of Fear," where climate-driven turbulence exacerbates geopolitical tensions and overwhelms societal coping mechanisms.
The security implications are manifold. Climate change acts as a potent "threat multiplier," exacerbating existing socioeconomic grievances, resource competition, and governance weaknesses, thereby increasing the risk of instability and conflict, particularly within states. Climate-induced migration, both internal and cross-border, is expected to increase significantly, potentially straining resources in receiving areas and creating new social and political tensions. The impacts of climate change can also directly degrade state capacity by damaging infrastructure, reducing agricultural output, impacting public health, and diverting resources towards disaster response, potentially leading to a decline in state legitimacy. Consequently, military forces may face increased demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) operations, as well as stabilization missions in climate-affected fragile states.
Responses to climate change are also acquiring geopolitical dimensions. While mitigation efforts continue, there is a growing focus on adaptation, particularly in highly vulnerable regions. This creates potential new arenas for international competition and influence, as countries like China position themselves as providers of adaptation infrastructure and technology, potentially creating new dependencies. Furthermore, the perceived inadequacy of current mitigation efforts is leading to increased interest in potentially risky, large-scale geoengineering solutions, such as solar radiation modification (SRM), raising complex questions about governance and unintended consequences. Integrating climate change considerations into all aspects of national security strategy and international relations analysis is no longer optional but essential for navigating the coming decade.
Societal Divisions & Misinformation
Across the globe, societies appear increasingly fractured and polarized. These divisions often run along lines of identity – encompassing not only traditional ethnic, religious, or national affiliations but also newly salient political or cultural groupings. Contributing factors include rising economic inequality, disillusionment with political institutions and elites, and the pervasive influence of increasingly segregated information environments. Populist movements, leveraging these grievances and divisions, continue to challenge liberal democratic norms in many countries.
Compounding these societal fissures is the escalating problem of misinformation and disinformation – often termed the "infodemic." Consistently ranked as a top global risk by experts for both the near and long term, the deliberate or inadvertent spread of false and misleading information poses a profound threat. Amplified by digital technologies, including social media algorithms and increasingly sophisticated AI-generated content, misinformation erodes trust in institutions (governments, media, science), hardens societal divisions by reinforcing echo chambers and polarizing narratives, and undermines the potential for reasoned public discourse and evidence-based policymaking. It can directly exacerbate other risks, from public health crises and political violence to international conflict.
These internal pressures create significant challenges for governance. Governments find it increasingly difficult to meet the needs and expectations of populations that are simultaneously more connected, more informed (or misinformed), more empowered to voice dissent, and more divided amongst themselves. High levels of domestic polarization and distrust can consume political energy, lead to policy paralysis, and encourage leaders to adopt more inward-looking or nationalistic foreign policy stances, further complicating international cooperation.
A dangerous feedback loop appears to be operating: geopolitical tensions and rapid technological change create fertile ground for the weaponization of information; this fuels misinformation and disinformation campaigns, which in turn deepen societal polarization and erode trust; weakened trust and increased polarization make effective governance and international problem-solving far more difficult, further exacerbating global instability. Breaking this cycle is a critical challenge for the decade ahead.
Strained Global Governance
The system of global governance, largely built in the aftermath of World War II, is facing unprecedented strain heading towards 2035. Multilateral institutions like the UN, WTO, and others are experiencing a decline in effectiveness and perceived legitimacy. This erosion stems from several factors: the rise of geopolitical competition leading major powers to bypass or ignore institutional rules when convenient, the difficulty these institutions face in adapting to new global challenges, and the diffusion of power to a wider array of actors whose interests may not align with established norms. Public and expert confidence in the ability of these organizations to solve major global problems appears to be waning.
Consequently, achieving meaningful international cooperation is becoming significantly more difficult, precisely at a time when transnational challenges demand it most urgently. Rising geopolitical tensions, diverging values and interests among key states, the paralyzing effects of domestic political pressures, and the proliferation of "veto players" capable of blocking collaborative initiatives all contribute to a growing deficit in global leadership and governance. The fragmentation of the information environment, creating multiple competing realities, further undermines the shared understanding necessary for collective action.
The landscape of influence is also shifting. Power is diffusing beyond nation-states to encompass a broader range of actors, including sub-national entities like major cities, powerful multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and influential individuals. While this can bring new resources and perspectives to global problem-solving, it also adds layers of complexity to coordination and agenda-setting. Future influence may depend less on traditional state power and more on the ability to build and leverage networks, relationships, and information flows.
This situation presents a stark paradox: the interconnected nature of global challenges – from climate change and pandemics to the governance of AI and financial stability – increasingly necessitates robust, coordinated international responses. Yet, the prevailing geopolitical climate of competition and mistrust, coupled with the weakening of established multilateral institutions, is simultaneously diminishing the global capacity for such cooperation. Bridging this dangerous gap between the scale of global problems and the collective ability to address them represents one of the most critical challenges for the international community in the lead-up to 2035.
Future Scenarios
Given the multitude of complex and interacting trends, predicting the precise state of the world in 2035 is impossible. However, scenario analysis provides a valuable tool for exploring a range of plausible futures, challenging assumptions, and identifying key uncertainties and decision points. Synthesizing scenarios developed by major foresight organizations like the NIC, the Atlantic Council, and the OECD reveals several recurring archetypes for the world around 2035.
Scenario Archetype 1: Renewed Cooperation/Order: This category encompasses futures where, despite current tensions, a degree of international order and cooperation is either restored or maintained.
NIC's Renaissance of Democracies: Envisions a resurgence led by the US and allies, driven by technological breakthroughs fostering economic growth and improving quality of life within democratic societies.
NIC's Tragedy & Mobilization: Posits that a global catastrophe (e.g., climate-induced food crisis) forces unprecedented international cooperation, potentially led by actors like the EU and China working with revitalized multilateral institutions, to address shared existential threats.
Atlantic Council's Reluctant International Order: Describes a "muddling through" scenario where the existing rules-based order persists, albeit weakened and contested. Great power rivalry continues, but is managed short of systemic collapse, with actors finding pragmatic ways to coexist and cooperate on specific issues (like a bioweapon threat response), often through regional or minilateral arrangements.
Key Drivers: Shared perception of existential threats, successful technological innovation within specific blocs, pragmatic leadership finding avenues for US-China coexistence, effective crisis response mechanisms.
Scenario Archetype 2: Competitive Fragmentation: This group of scenarios highlights futures dominated by geopolitical rivalry, strategic competition, and the division of the world into distinct blocs.
NIC's Competitive Coexistence: Depicts a world where the US and China prioritize economic growth and maintain robust trade ties, but simultaneously compete fiercely across political, technological, and strategic domains.
NIC's Separate Silos / OECD's Multitrack World: Envisions a world fragmented into distinct economic, security, and potentially technological blocs centered around major powers (US, China, EU, Russia, regional powers), with a strong focus on self-sufficiency, resilience, and defense within each silo.
Atlantic Council's China Ascendant: Portrays a future where China surpasses the US as the dominant global power, actively reshaping international norms and institutions, facilitated by US internal preoccupation and withdrawal from global leadership.
RANE/Stratfor's Multipolarity: Emphasizes a system with multiple power centers, erosion of global institutions, and middle powers maneuvering between the giants.
Key Drivers: Intensification of US-China rivalry across all domains, prioritization of national security and self-sufficiency over global integration, technological divergence creating separate ecosystems, significant shifts in relative power balances (e.g., US decline or stagnation).
Scenario Archetype 3: Disorder/Adrift: This archetype captures futures characterized by heightened chaos, instability, and a breakdown of international order and governance capacity.
NIC's A World Adrift: Describes an international system that is directionless, chaotic, and volatile, where international rules are largely ignored by major and minor actors, and developed countries are plagued by internal divisions and paralysis.
Atlantic Council's Climate of Fear: Paints a picture where accelerating climate change impacts become the dominant global reality, exacerbating resource scarcity, driving mass migration, fueling conflict, and overwhelming governance systems.
OECD's Vulnerable World: Highlights a future where humanity confronts multiple, potentially cascading crises (environmental, technological, health) that require near-perfect global collaboration, but the capacity for such cooperation is lacking.
Key Drivers: Failure of leadership by major powers, collapse of key international norms and institutions, runaway climate change triggering cascading effects, synergistic impact of multiple crises (e.g., pandemic combined with economic collapse and conflict).
The path towards 2035 is not predetermined and will be shaped by how several key uncertainties resolve:
US-China Relations: Will the rivalry stabilize into a form of managed competition or escalate towards open confrontation?
Russia's Trajectory: How will the Ukraine war conclude, and what role will a potentially weakened but still nuclear-armed Russia play?
Technological Disruption: What will be the pace and societal impact of breakthroughs, particularly in AI, and can governance keep pace?
Climate Action: Will global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change prove sufficient to avert the worst-case scenarios?
Middle Power Alignment: Will key middle powers coalesce to form alternative poles of influence, or will they primarily align with existing great powers?
Domestic Political Stability: Can democratic institutions withstand pressures from polarization and populism, and will authoritarian states maintain internal control?
Unforeseen Shocks: How will the world respond to potential "black swan" events like novel pandemics, major technological accidents, or unexpected conflict escalations?
Monitoring developments related to these uncertainties will be crucial for anticipating which future scenario, or combination of elements from different scenarios, is most likely to emerge.
Conclusion
The confluence of trends examined in this report points strongly towards a global geopolitical landscape in 2035 that is significantly more fragmented, competitive, and potentially volatile than that of the recent past. The unipolar moment has definitively ended, replaced by a complex multipolarity centered on the intensifying rivalry between the United States and China, but significantly influenced by the choices of other major actors like Russia and the European Union, as well as a growing cohort of assertive middle powers.
Geoeconomic forces are actively reshaping global trade and technological development along geopolitical lines, while the accelerating impacts of climate change and the disruptive potential of technologies like AI introduce profound systemic risks. Societal divisions, amplified by a pervasive infodemic, strain governance capacity both domestically and internationally, making cooperation on shared challenges increasingly difficult precisely when it is most needed. The risk of major power conflict, including the potential use of nuclear weapons, is perceived by experts as disturbingly high.
While this trajectory towards greater contestation appears dominant, the future remains unwritten. The scenario analysis reveals a wide spectrum of plausible outcomes, ranging from renewed international cooperation spurred by crisis or shared values, to deeper fragmentation into competing blocs, to outright global disorder. Critical uncertainties remain regarding the evolution of great power relations, the impact of technological breakthroughs, the effectiveness of climate action, and the resilience of political systems.
