Russia cannot defeat Ukraine despite its overwhelming military power. Iran is standing up to US foreign policy and outlasting the bombardment. Israel's regional dominance faces an uncertain future. These aren't isolated events — they represent a fundamental power shift in international relations. War is becoming an economic process, not a military one. Supply chains, resources, and economic resilience now determine who survives. Sanctions and trade are being weaponised by smaller states fighting back, not just by the aggressors who once controlled them.
Meanwhile, soft power in the West has collapsed. Neoliberalism is failing at home — inequality, instability, and domestic discontent in the USA, UK, France, and Germany mean nobody wants to import our political economy model any more. The credibility of Western diplomacy is in freefall. What replaces it? A politics of care, cooperation, and respect — or more chaos. That's the choice we face. This is geopolitics explained honestly, and it matters to every one of us.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Political economy is shaped by power relationships. That is, in fact, what it studies, and those relationships are now shifting dramatically. The old assumptions that made the world work no longer hold true, but politicians are failing to recognise this change, and that's really worrying me. We are moving into a new era, but are our politicians, commentators, and those who are actually shaping policy in the military and elsewhere, understanding the new world we're entering?
In that new world, military strength no longer guarantees victory. Dominant nations cannot impose outcomes. Wars are increasingly unwinnable. Power is no longer what it was. So what now determines control?
Let's look at the facts. Russia is unable to beat Ukraine. It's lost massive numbers of lives and vast quantities of resources, and there is no decisive outcome to that war as yet. Military dominance has proved insufficient for it to be able to win.
The limits on US military power are also becoming exposed at present. The US has been used to dumping missiles and other bombs onto places like Afghanistan, and Libya, and Syria, and now it's trying to do the same with Iran, where it has done this before, but it's becoming apparent that the technique is no longer working.
Iran is standing up to the assault. More than that, it's actually exposing the weakness in the USA. Iran could outlast the supply of missiles being aimed at it. If it does, the balance of power will shift heavily in Iran's favour.
The US assumes that a short war will always work for it. That is no longer true. What we also do know is that these wars have never truly worked. They've never delivered real regime change. They've only created short-term vacuums of power, and the outcomes have often been deeply unfavourable.
There's another process that's going on at the same time, and that is that Israel is facing the end of its own military certainty. I could remember the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel won. Israel has won every war it's been engaged with since then, and now it's suddenly in a different position. Iran is also exposing Israel. If the USA can't back Israel's assault on Iran with the firepower that is needed to create a victory, Israel is going to suddenly find itself in a totally new political economic situation.
Its assumption of regional dominance might now be challenged. Its military superiority may no longer be decisive. Its strategic limits of power may become increasingly visible, and all of this is happening at the same time as something else is going on.
War is shifting from being a military process to being an economic process. What is becoming very clear in the fight with Iran is that supply chains and resources are now critical to the victory that Iran is seeking. Sanctions and finance as weapons have been used in the past, but they were used by the aggressor against the smaller state. Now the smaller state is finding it can use them and fight back.
The cost of war is now constraining outcomes, and we're seeing this happening in Ukraine, by the way. They have become absolute masters of creating cheap armaments. That is what is holding Russia at bay. In the case of Iran, of course, it is oil, but in either case, economic resilience is determining survival.
Smaller states are, then, refusing to submit to the power that is being thrown at them now, and this is a major change in world thinking. The idea that we have superpowers and they will always determine outcomes has been something that I've lived with all my life, but it's no longer true.
Resistance is being rooted in culture and belief, and we're seeing that in Ukraine. People believe in the country.
In Iran, people believe in the faith.
People are no longer willing to accept the threat of occupation being imposed upon them, when that might mean a regime change with regard to the culture of the country. Identity is therefore proving to be stronger than force in these cases, and this is really important.
Iran proves this. Internal dissent does exist, but external imposition of change is being rejected. There is no appetite in Iran for US-imposed regime change. They've seen what has happened elsewhere. They don't trust Western intentions. Why should they? Legitimacy cannot be imported into a country, and anyway, Western models of neoliberal politics are failing globally. There's massive domestic discontent with them in both the USA and the UK right now, and France and Germany. Everywhere, right-wing and authoritarian politics are rising, and people are seeing this as some sort of indication that what they've got may be what they'll get, and as a consequence, they're no longer persuaded by the idea that the USA coming in with its missiles is also coming in as a saviour. It isn't. Neoliberalism is dead.
The consequence is that military bombardment is losing its effectiveness. Economic warfare is gaining an importance, and identity politics are becoming decisive, and we are failing to take that into account. Legitimacy is replacing coercion. Power is now more complex and diffuse as a result. Internal failures are undermining the external influence of Western countries, and inequality and instability in the West is being seen visibly around the world. The credibility of our model of government is collapsing, and others are therefore unwilling to replicate it.
Soft power has also been severely weakened in the West. Look at the UK. We've undermined the funding of the BBC's World Service. It's hardly surprising that people aren't noticing what we have to say anymore.
There is now no global dominant economic or political model is the point I'm making. This is important because multiple competing forces are now very clearly at play in international political economy, and it's becoming impossible to predict outcomes. High levels of geopolitical instability and genuine uncertainty are now unavoidable when we look at what is happening in the world.
What is going to happen? Well, I don't know. Nobody does. Let's be clear about this. We can only guess, but my feeling is that there's going to be a major shift towards soft power strategies now. Influence will come through culture and economics. Nonviolent tools are going to become central to what is going on in the world. Warfare is going to be downscaled. I'm not going to complain about that. Whilst diplomacy will regain importance, new forms of conflict are emerging, and so will new forms of conflict resolution as a result.
Sanctions, trade and finance tools are going to be a part of this agenda, and the control of resources is obviously going to become strategic, and there will be winners and losers as a result, and they may be far away from the point of the original conflict. That's also important to remember.
Currency and payment systems are going be weaponised.
Economic pressure is going to replace invasion, but limits will still apply.
I come back to the point, ideology is now central to conflict, and one of the things that we've got to accept is that there are now genuine ideological differences, and we are not going to resolve them through conflict. There is no way now that imposed belief systems are going to work in regimes which are imposed upon countries. National and cultural identity will prevent that, and in fact, they will be strengthened by any attempts to undermine them.
Polarisation has driven conflict dynamics to date. Of course it has. The idea that someone is an enemy is what has made it possible to go forward and kill them. That is how we overcome our reservations about doing that. But the point is that things are going to be different in the future. If we're going to respect difference, and we're going to have to, because countries are not going to accept our points of view automatically just because it's been imposed with a gun, we're going to have to be talking about a politics of care. We're going to have to reject dehumanisation of opponents. We're going to have to move beyond “enemy” narratives. We're going to have to emphasise cooperation and respect, and we're going to have to reduce the drivers of conflict.
My point is this: neoliberalism has been exposed in its harshest form. War is revealing the failures of it as a current system of management, of government, of societies, and of the world. Power structures are therefore going to undergo transformation. Change is now inevitable. Old models cannot survive. No one knows what the answers are as yet. Me included. But what I am saying is we now need to address these issues, and that is the next stage of the process.
Recognising the scale of the change underway now is vital. We need to question assumptions about war and power, and we need to engage with new political possibilities. We need to demand a politics based on care.
If you agree, please comment down below. Please share this video and subscribe to our channel. Let us know what you think. It's really important. It shapes how we create future videos.
Poll
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
My daughter sent me a video of an event in Liverpool yesterday of a gathering of Iranians celebrating the new year.
It was a potent reminder to me that Western leaders have still failed to grasp that the old ways of waging war are no longer viable, even after the Iraq escapade – Afghanistan too.
Some sort of globalisation of people has taken place – we are all now much more integrated with each other – the possibility of acknowledging differences within our midst is tangible but still so misunderstood – providing opportunities for peace and I’m afraid conflict too for those who wish to pursue it. Whoever the idiots in charge decide who the enemy is could be your next door neighbour or the vendor you buy your shopping from. And they are entitled to their opinion too. Those opinions are best aligned rather than at odds with each other. Instead, it looks like authoritarianism is on the menu in the West.
Trying to explain this to Washington is nigh impossible. As for Israel and its hyper-radical Zionism – it is simply sacrificing world peace to achieve a peace at home that will remain doubtful and tenuous in the region. How will an enlarged Israel work? An Israel using Hezbollah as an excuse to acquire ‘lebensraum’ (living space). Cuba – being blockaded right now because of the Cuban right-wingers in Miami wanting to settle grudges. For now extremism has its moment in history and our lives are correspondingly short in comparison. All we can do is bear witness to it for future generations in the hope that they learn something – yet again.
It is disturbing to learn something of an extensive and long-lasting but largely secretive ‘Israel lobby’ that has been influencing US policies. Also, the British Government appears to have ignored international law with regard to genocide in Gaza and favoured pro-Israel policies by facilitating surveyance flights and providing facilities at the UK base in Cyprus. The Prime Minister, Morgan McSweeney and others appear to have been behind this but have not been upfront about it. Now there is an illegal war with our government failing to match the Spaniards, for example, in condemning it.
Honesty matters. Openness as to one’s motivations – integrity – resonate with populations and their electorates.
Toxic influence Israel’s far rightis how to mentally apparent, including in politics in the UK and USA. It has been a forced to undermine democracy and the choice of people and that is something that we have to eradicate from our politics now..Thewre is nothing antisemitic about saying so. In fact, supporting this agenda is a definition of antisemitism.
You wrote: ‘Warfare is going to be downscaled.’
In the 1950’s a magazine called ‘Reader’s Digest’ often appeared in doctors’ and dentists’ waiting rooms. Quotes appeared at the foot of some pages. One of them, from an American military officer, stuck in my mind:
‘I become more and more convinced that, if you prepare for war, you get it.’
He was right
The ‘expected war’ was a world war between the West and the Soviet bloc. That one didn’t happen, thank God. Or thanks to some leaders being willing to talk. Even Reagan was persuaded in his second term. But it got close at times.
This is a good analysis of what is, and what needs to be, but as you say, we do not know what will be.
I suspect (and I really want to be wrong here) that domestically, in the short term, what we will see is increasing authoritarianism, repression and the continued erosion of our civil liberties and basic freedoms.
Governments that cannot win the argument by persuasion or example will simply impose their preferred solutions on us. The contents of Shabana Mahmood’s red boxes should scare us.
My instinct at the moment is that we need to support every example of free media that will help us resist, local and national, and to call out authoritarianism in gov’t and opposition, before it becomes impossible.
Without the means of free communication,, spreading news of alternatives, including a politics of care, becomes very difficult.
To end on a positive note – what cheers me up and keeps me hopeful?
People. Whenever I get out and see what ordinary people are capable of – the ordinary people that politicians and pundits have such contempt for, then I get a glimpse of what is possible.
Have a good day in my birth country, and beautiful Edinburgh.
Much to agree with
Thank you
I truly can’t believe you are supporting the Iranian regime in this way. You casually mention “internal dissent” as if it a few flag waving protesters when the reality is 100s of thousands of dissenters have been murdered, tortured or disappeared so now the voice of the dissent is wholly suppressed. Yet you express this “unity” as an alternative to neoliberalism. I really can’t believe what you have written. It is truly shocking.
Please do not be an idiot. It does not become you. I am not supporting the Iranian regime. Why would I when it refuses as human rights and imposes to bureaucracy? I am making an observation. That is all. You are the person who distorting the truth.
“100s of thousands”, sure about that? Not a nice gov’ but at least it does not commit genocide and war crimes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/18/israel-gaza-model-lebanon-international-reaction-sanctions
The Israeli state wants to implement a “Gaza 2” in a neigbouring country (war crime? or genocide?). Or let’s try this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/21/israel-targeting-medical-facilities-south-lebanon-health-workers
war crime. The gov in Iran is unpleasant, but for the most part it does not committ genocide (Israel in Gaza), does not committ war crimes (Israel in Lebanon) and seems to operate on the basis of leave me alone & I’ll leave you alone. By contrast, Israel regularly attacks other states (as one of the articles notes 93% of the jewish population in Israel support the attack on Lebanon = they support war crimes). Israel only seems interested in war. Iran just wants to be left alone.
You need to verify your specific claims about Iran.
You also could to do some deeper research into the genesis of the violence of the Iran street protests and the regime’s response. The violence was horrific, but the story of how it started and who initiated it it, is complicated and even more unpleasant, as is the story of the internet shutdown and the role of Starlink hardware.
It’s like watching an old “cowboys and indians” film. The identification of goodies and baddies is not as simple as Hollywood portrayed it at the time.
“If” Trump wants support from the Iranian people, against the Islamic theocracy, he needs to stop killing them and sanctioning them first. At the moment, he is bolstering support for the regime.
‘Regimes?’ Hmm – interesting.
Tell me Brian, who really benefits from the sanctions against Iran? Or how about who in Iran actually gets hurt by them?
Or about the double standards applied in that Israel have nuclear capability in the area but no one else is allowed to apparently (which Israel hid, and kidnapped and imprisoned, and tortured one of their own scientists – Mordechai Vanunu – for telling the world that they had such nuclear capacity – 18 years in prison, 11 in solitary confinement reportedly and a prisoner in his country).
But then again Brian, Mordechai was born in Morocco – he was not one of the white euro-supremacists in the Israeli government who seem to have a problem with ‘brown’ people – even if they are good Jews. Oh, and there’s an addiction to ‘revenge’ too which also very prevalent and marks these people in charge out as rather…well, you know.
Now what is that saying about those living in glass houses throwing stones………………….?
Logistics has always been one of the key components of waging and winning any military conflict. Do you have (or can you buy or make) the materiel and personnel, and can you get them to the necessary places, and keep them operating as long as necessary. Also morale – which you could consider as a form of psychological logistics – can you keep fighting despite setbacks.
But you also need strategy – what are you trying to achieve, and how will you achieve it – ideally arranging affairs so you will win before a shot is fired. And intelligence and manoeuvre and terrain.
This is all in Sun Tzu’s Art of War, from the fifth century BC. The technology changes but really the basic principles don’t.
Agreed
And thankfully more young people can see right through rich men’s wars, and don’t want to be their cannon fodder.
Part of the strength of the US was not just it’s military and industrial might. It was it’s network of allies who could go around the world and do the diplomatic day to day maintenance of the global order without needing much in terms of micromanaging from Washington. That has come to a halt and the US can’t restart it. “What have our allies ever done for us?” This phrase has ended US global power. US leaders are too transactional and too obsessed with status to be a global power.
Agreed
Anyone seeing pictures of the final US evacuations/escapes from Saigon and Kabul after the disastrous Vietnam and Afghan wars would realise the emperor has no clothes.
Its not that new is it Richard? Some of us marched against the Vietnam war – and look how that ended for the then overwhelming military power.<p>
But ‘economic power’ is also problematical – notably economic sanctions . One study found :<p>
‘ sanctions increasingly frequent but inconsistently effective. Economic costs fall heavily on civilians, trade patterns shift toward neutral countries, and enforcement complexity rises'<p>
There are so many worries arising from your analysis – not least of which is the universal withdrawal from nuclear arms treaties – and reckless politicians talking about ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons – which contemplate that they can actually be used without escalation to global annihilation. The Israel/US assault on Iran will persuade Iran and others – to think that they have eventually to go nuclear. Trump’s efforts to further discredit international laws, international rules, international agreements etc. etc. is so destructive – makes China almost look civilised and a stable force in the world.<p>
There will always be massive vested interests in arms . They will be happy to produce the new cheaper drones and counter-drones – but will also still say aircraft carriers, supersonic fighters and long range bombers and nuclear subs must still be produced in large quantities. And there will always be a defined ‘enemy’ an ‘axis of evil’ , which is currently Iran, but was Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc etc. <p>
Apparently states can now officially starve and/or bomb millions in Gaza, Cuba, Lebanon <p>
Our politics are almost going opposite to your analysis – all the talk is of increasing ‘defence’ spend – nothing about rethinking our economy , nothing about reinvigorate international agreements, diplomacy, treaties – to avoid a coming catastrophe.
My point is, things are going to change. The dinosaurs are still in charge.
I hope you are correct about this. It does need to happen. How and when I am not sure.
For decades whoever sat in the White House would bomb some distant country for questionable reasons to distract from whatever pressure they were under at home. I remember it starting with Reagan bombing Libya, there are possibly other previous examples Vietnam, Korea, Cuba e.c.t. but they were before my time. I think every US president since Reagan has used militarism for some type of deflection. That is probably a change from previous military conflicts throughout history. Advances in the technology of transportation, communications and weaponry means that wars are no longer fought with neighbours the aggressor can fight a war thousands of miles from its borders. Thus enabling it to be used as a distraction. Prior to this era most conflicts were over resources, either disputed resources or one country using brute force to take over the resources of a neighbour, pillaging has been going on for thousands of years. The crusades of the 11th to 13th centuries were a possible exception. But it could be argued they were fought over spiritual resources or just to maintain control of land in that region. Sadly that fighting is still going on there today.
We are in now in a very different situation. As you point out most recent wars are failing in their initial objective, despite the political whitewashing that always follows the hostilities. It appeared that the West thought that by removing authoritarian leaders in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, that they would automatically default to western style democracies. It is very clear that did not happen.
The largest elephant in the room is the self-inflicted damage neoliberal economics has done to the much of the west. We are now more dependent than ever on foreign resources. China is now the real world superpower. It could do so much damage to the west without firing a shot. If it simply stopped exporting to the west we would very quickly be in trouble. Infrastructure could start to fail within months as the systems it depends on could not be repaired due to lack of components. We manufacture little and don’t hold much stock as these are costs the neoliberal bean counters could not bare. Taking military action may be difficult as western weapons system require materials and components sourced from China.
I read the piece on Substack by Aurelian the other day, thank you for recommending. He points out that many ‘ordinary’ people have a sense of decency, and fail to see this in those in power.
Reading your piece and the comments, much to agree with, much to ponder, and my first thought is, when so many governments are controlled by rich elites, so how do we defend our societies and resources against their predation, and when governments that put care first emerge, where do the elite put their money to maintain their position?
The battles to protect our data and curb the abuse of AI are crucial.
I mostly agree with your analysis. The concern I have is the Nuclear Option. Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz exposing the economics and power dynamics you discuss. Ukraine is holding off Russia. If this continues, whether Ukraine or Iran, will recourse to Nuclear Weapons become the option thus reinforcing that military might can still be the decisive action in a war?
You are right to worry.
I have no definite answer.
No one has.
Arguably, Neoliberalism has been the de facto approach of all colonial projects for centuries. The East India Company was an example of a company being given almost complete free reign. When colonising countries physically became less easy and acceptable economic control took up the baton. Cloaked in the upright idea of ‘may the best man win’ Neoliberalism has always sought an uneven playing field. From industrial espionage to regime change and not forgetting the extortionate terms of financial aid to less developed countries sitting on valuable resources.
Trump has ripped the mask off this enterprise and I would agree that some parts of the Neoliberal project are now damaged but it survives in other ways. Global market places on the internet are still strong and subject to very little regulation and monopolies are still very much the order of the day.
The final knotty corner of neoliberalism is the insidious way it has wedged itself in the consciousness of so many people who cannot imagine how it could be different.
Not dead but dying.
I would argue otherwise, but not this morning. Neoliberalism did not exist when the East India Company did. Capitalism did, though.