The renowned historian Niall Ferguson wrote a column on Bloomberg titled “If You Think World War III is Unimaginable, Read This” on February 11. He starts interestingly by saying, “Are we unable to imagine defeat?” Ferguson writes that Americans forgot the defeat in Afghanistan too quickly. He asks, “Why wouldn’t China, with its technological supremacy, win the Third World War that could result from a Taiwan crisis  ?” He says that America cannot be trusted and that it was actually the people of Vietnam who lost in the Vietnam War.

Now, I ask you, “Will we see the outbreak of a Third World War?” But first, I suggest we look at how the two previous world wars broke out and how they resulted (*):

World War I was a struggle by the two major powers of Continental Europe, namely Germany and Austria-Hungary, to get a larger share of the world trade, which was almost entirely controlled by Britain and France at the time. When the war ended, Britain and France could not maintain their former exploitative orders even though they had won. With the war, the Ottoman, Russian, Austria-Hungarian, and German empires ended. The world was changing. Having come to power through a revolution in 1917, communists achieved to dominate almost the entire former Russian geography through socialism after a long civil war.

In Italy and Germany, fascism naturally came to power after the First World War. The fascist parties in both countries promised to prepare their nations for war and seek revenge. Eventually, these two fascist movements started World War II as the great economist John Maynard Keynes had predicted just when World War I was over.

According to the most widely accepted estimate, the death toll was 60 million, with 20 million being soldiers and 40 million civilians. Most of the civilians died because of genocide, massacre, strategic bombardment, contagious disease, and starvation.

The post-war world was divided into two: the “communists” and the others. A period called the “Cold War” began. The characteristic of this period was that the Soviet Union on the one hand and the United States on the other produced enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world multiple times although there was no hot conflict.

But is there a likelihood of another world war?

Let’s read…

(*)Berkan, İ.(2023). İnsanlığın Kısa Tarihi (The Short History of Human Civilization), The Kitap Yayınları, pp.256.

This article was originally published in Turkish on April 28, 2024.

Let’s take a quick look at the reasons that led to the World Wars 1 and 2 and their outcomes to be able to answer this question:

World War I

World War I was a struggle on the part of the two major powers of Continental Europe, namely Germany and Austria-Hungary, to get a larger share of the world trade which was almost entirely controlled by Britain and France at the time. Britain, which controlled the seas, was in control of world trade since the time of mercantilism.

Having gone into war for opportunistic reasons, Russia claimed to defend its interests in the Balkans against Austria-Hungary. Once the Ottoman Empire joined the war, Russia added going beyond Istanbul toward warm seas to its goals. Italy initially collaborated with Germany and Austria-Hungary but soon changed sides and partnered with Britain and France to expand its area of interest in Africa.

The Ottoman Empire also wanted to side with Britain and France at first, but Britain did not want it. Because they had seen that the “Sick Man” wouldn’t get any better. Then, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany and Austria-Hungary in the hope of retaining its “homeland” which it lost in the Balkan War a few years ago. However, they had fought against each other for the same goals in the same territories for centuries.

Another party of the war, Japan, was in a critical power struggle with Russia on the other end of Asia. It had partially invaded China and colonialized the Korean Peninsula. It wanted to expand its territory. These colonialist goals of Japan created an enmity in Southeastern Asia (Pacific Rim) like the one that went on between us and the Balkan States.

The war had spread to the whole world but its center of gravity was inevitably France, where German armies and French and British armies were stuck in opposite trenches. The two sides fought in those trenches for many years and used chemical weapons. It was quite a dirty war. Staff officers of each party did some chess move-like maneuvers. For example, German officers destroyed an entire Ottoman army in Sarıkamış despite the forbidding geographical conditions before even having met the enemy just to distract the enemy’s attention. In the officers’ opinion, Russia, which would have to lead a long war with the Ottoman Empire in the Caucasus would shift troops from Europe to the Caucasian front, and with a sigh of relief, Germany would bring some of its soldiers from the Eastern front to France and tip the scales of the war in its favor.

But this is not how things turned out. On the contrary, the Ottoman Empire lost the entire Eastern Anatolia and Eastern Black Sea and the Russian invasion took place. The military landing of Britain and France in Çanakkale was a similar move. Thus, the Ottoman Empire would get out of the way, Russia would get a break, and Germany would have to shift troops from the West to the Eastern Front. This didn’t go as planned either. In addition to the major defeat of the French and British fleets, tens of thousands of ANZAC and Indian soldiers died. And we, in return, sacrificed many young people, even of high school age, that is the next generation. True, we had made history; Çanakkale was impassable! I wonder how it would be if we remembered how the enemy occupied Istanbul after the Armistice of Moudros without firing even a single gun and the lessons we learned from our military alliance and officer mistakes each time we celebrate this great victory we had. Maybe our retired officers could write about the true causes of the wars we went in and our mistakes in a way that the general public could understand… Wouldn’t it be good?

The Ottoman Empire’s Channel Expedition against Egypt was another similar chess-like move. Thus, Britain would be prevented from sending more troops to the Western front. But this adventure cost the Ottoman Empire a lot again. We lost the entire Arabian Peninsula, as well as Palestine and Syria. Here’s another example: There are cemeteries for Turkish martyrs on today’s Polish lands because the Ottoman Empire had sent soldiers there (the Galician front) to help Germany.

After remaining stuck in the trenches of the Western front with no progress for years, the war changed direction once the United States of America joined the war on the side of Britain and France. Germany and Austria-Hungary soon got defeated. Meanwhile, the communist revolution took place in Russia, which then left the war entirely.

This is the origin of the statement, “We were considered defeated because Germany was defeated,” which we still see in our textbooks, but how true is that? The Ottoman Empire suffered a great defeat, losing not only its material possessions and territories but also its youth, and had its lands occupied except Western Black Sea and Central Anatolia.

When the war ended, Britain and France could not maintain their former exploitative orders even though they had won. With the war, the Ottoman, Russian, Austria-Hungarian, and German empires ended. The world was changing. Having come to power through a revolution in 1917, communists achieved to dominate almost the entire former Russian geography through socialism after a long civil war.

Out of the Ottoman Empire came the countries Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. They were all artificial states founded under the impact of external forces. For example, while the people lived on the east-west axis, these states were founded on the north-south axis. The borders were drawn with no regard to actual lives. The Hashemite tribe, which was first the sovereign, then the core of Hedjaz for 1400 years, was, for some reason, founded outside of Hedjaz, in a region where the Zionists had their interests, under the name of the Kingdom of Jordan. A Middle Eastern chaos that still goes on today was aimed for and the lion’s den was prepared for the next mission.

We saved İstanbul and Anatolia from the occupying forces through a legendary Independence War and established the Republic of Türkiye within the borders of the National Pact. But we couldn’t even keep Thessaloniki, Hatay, or Kirkuk. 

On some of the former Prussian lands that belonged to Germany, Poland was established. With the lands acquired from Russia and Germany, three Baltic countries; namely Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia were formed. Finally, Finland gained its independence from Russia. Germany lost some territory in the West. It lost Alsace-Lorraine, which had rich coal and iron mines.

Out of Austria-Hungary were born an independent Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and, of course, a contracted Austria. A country called Yugoslavia was founded in the Balkans, bringing together Orthodox Serbians, Catholic Slovenians, and Croatian and Muslim Bosnians, which was a bomb that would explode before long.

The European map was not the only thing that changed. After the First World War, monarchies also ended. Starting with Germany, republics were founded across Continental Europe, including the newly established countries. Efforts were made to create parliamentary democracies. But in my opinion, these are only constitutional monarchies that are still evolving. Likewise, the new Constitution of Türkiye also adopts a similar regime. 

World War II

Today, without the knowledge of mathematics and its branches, the probability theory and statistics, you can study neither economics nor sociology in college. Hegel tried to apply this to history. He believed history had a “direction of course”; social history moved forward.  As people went from the backward or primitive to the forward or advanced, they always had big conflicts. He called them “dialectic.”

Developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Marxism believed it discovered a kind of natural law concerning progress and development. Marxism claims that history inevitably moves forward toward communism. Marx and Engels believed that once the destination of communism is reached, the progress of history would stop, and, again, this progress was an inevitable law of nature.

The specter of fascism and Nazism

Nationalism is a concept invented by people around 250 years ago. But today it is almost engrained in our genetic codes. We cannot live without having such a shared identity. In the war-worn Italy of 1919, a former journalist named Benito Mussolini published a declaration titled the “Fascist Manifesto” and started a political movement that would remain in power for many years to come.

Mussolini’s Fascist Party rested on nationalism at its very core but that was not all. For example, they were against democracy, Marxism, and anarchism. The fascists wanted the society to organize like a clenched fist around a single leader and a single political party that was his political organization.

The opposition had no legitimacy in fascism. The country would altogether get ready for war and economic challenges would be addressed by acting as one. This theory developed in Italy was soon adopted in many other places. Nazism, the German version of fascism, came to power through democratic elections in 1933, and shortly after, Nazis fulfilled their promise and abolished democracy.

We see the claim of nationalism and superiority under the guise of scientific thought not only in Italy and Germany but in all other places that adopted fascism. Here are three more examples from Europe: the Spain of Franco, the Portugal of Salazar, and the Serbia of Milosevic.

Both In Italy and Germany, fascism rose almost as a natural consequence of World War I and came to power. The fascist parties of both countries promised to prepare their nations for war and take revenge. Eventually, these two fascist movements initiated World War II. The great economist John Maynard Keynes had already predicted this outcome when the First World War had just ended.  

The revolution that changed the course of history

On October 25, that is, November 7 by today’s calendar, the Bolhevists stirred up an armed revolt in Petrograd, that is, today’s St. Petersburg, and seized state buildings.   The major change of regime known as the Soviet Revolution today took place. After a civil war that lasted from November 1917 until the end of 1922 in the country, the Bolshevists got full control of the situation and founded the state that would leave its mark on the entire 20th century, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  

The Soviet Union was the very first communist state the world had seen. The leaders of the Soviet Revolution, Lenin and Trotsky, wanted to make Marx’s utopia a reality. All means of production were nationalized and private ownership was ended. Collectivism was real and it dominated life entirely.

Eventually, disputes arose between the leaders about the character of the revolution and how daily practices would be shaped. After Lenin’s death, Stalin, who had remained in the background until then and was regarded as more of a practitioner than a theoretician, came to power and had all his rivals killed, starting with Trotsky. Not having been content with this, Stalin made particularly the Crimean and Meskethian Turks suffer by way of exile and genocide. Millions of people lost their lives as a result of Stalin’s communist policies of a fascist nature. Originally from Georgia, Stalin was actually a Russian fascist.

The Soviet Revolution cost tens of millions of Russians their lives because of the great famine resulting from the mistakes made in agricultural production in the early years and Stalin’s extensive “political slaughters.” Ultimately, the Soviet Union turned into hell living under the firm control of the party and its undercover/open police organizations rather than the paradise where “the means of production belonged to everyone, nobody exploited another, and therefore everyone was free” that Marx dreamed of. I wrote about the agricultural production mistakes made under Stalin’s reign in my article on the book Seeing Like a State (

Finally, in my opinion, fascist regimes faced off in hopes of achieving their expansionist goals and the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union and the Eastern Front became the bloodiest front of the Second World War. Stalin knew that once the war was over his allies would want to come back to choke him. Thus, right after the war, he insisted on sharing Europe. Today’s Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, the eastern half of Germany, and the Baltic republics were left to the Soviet control.

The toll of World War II was horrible 2

Since many deaths were not recorded, estimates about the death toll of the war differ. The most common estimate is that around 60 million people died, with 20 million being military personnel and 40 million civilians. Most of the civilians died because of genocides, massacres, strategic bombardments, contagious diseases, and starvation. During the war, the death toll in the Soviet Union alone was over 27 million, with 8.7 million being soldiers and 19 million civilians. One-fourth of the people who lived in the Soviet Union got injured or died in the war. Germany lost 5.3 million soldiers, most of whom died on the Eastern Front or in the latest conflicts in Germany. The racist policies of the Nazis directly or indirectly led to the death of 11 to 17 million civilians. (

Maybe the only good thing about the Second World War was that the Young Turkish Republic could keep out of it. After the war, acting quite pragmatically, we sided with the winners. The Republic of Türkiye picked its side by entering the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) founded in the next decade and supporting NATO in the Korean War. But even though Türkiye was entirely integrated into the West, it would never gain the West’s trust and be treated as a step-child forever. The reason behind this was that we were described as a “Rascal State” even in NATO documents and that our pursuing our national interests, having our own opinion about matters, or wishing to act independently would never be tolerated. But we had dominated Europe almost entirely in the 17th century and never been one of them. That threat was never to be repeated ever again. For more information about this, you should take a look at the detailed annexes of the Treaty of Lausanne. However, the West was more tolerant of Southeastern Asian countries in this respect as there was a huge ocean between them and the West.  And they had to be powerful against China, the rising power of the new century.

The post-war world was divided into two, namely, the “communists” and others. The period called the “Cold War” began. The characteristic of this period was that even though there was no hot conflict, the Soviet Union on the one hand, and the United States on the other produced enough nuclear weaponsto destroy the whole world several times. Some argue that we owe the fact that no hot conflict happened to this “nuclear balance.” According to this view, the parties always avoided hot conflict so as not to end up having to use nuclear weapons. Between 1945 and 1990, the world became “two-poled.” Throughout this period, it was, indeed, two competing economic systems and two competing worldviews about humanity that fought against each other.

In 1990, when the Soviet Union rapidly and unexpectedly collapsed, it turned out that the Soviets could ensure equality among people only at a level of misery while trying to realize the utopia of Marx and Engels. The state had offered its citizens world-class education and healthcare, and science significantly advanced yet Soviet citizens did not even come close to the high consumption and welfare levels in the West.

Aside from the effects of the Soviet Revolution and the following 70 years on world politics, probably most importantly, the fact that communist regimes came to power in various parts of the world, starting with Russia, and the communist economic order ran against capitalism but eventually fell behind were seen as proof that Marxism as a current of political and economic thought was defeated and invalidated.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, China’s move toward authoritarian capitalism by maintaining the power of its Communist Party, the capitalization of Vietnam, Cuba’s failure to stand strong without the support of the Soviet Union, and North Korea’s becoming more of a dictatorship than a communist state led to the frequent uttering of the view “Marx lost, Adam Smith and other capitalist/liberal thinkers won.”

Keynes believed that the First World War was the result of commercial imbalances among countries. Britain had established a “sterling union” with its colonies and did not allow other nations to get big shares of the world trade or colonize. Countries that could not set up such a system and did not have enough colonies but whose industries were at least as advanced as those of France and Britain, particularly Germany, could not sell their products to the world. According to Keynes, this was the reason behind the outbreak of the First World War.

The war had severely damaged the British economy. Britain had financed the war with the money it borrowed from the United States of America. It also lent to France to keep it alive.  So, France owed to Britain, and Britain owed to the USA. At the end of the war, Britain and France decided that Germany would pay all these debts.

The Second World War, which broke out soon, was indeed the result of the damage caused by World War I. The end of monarchies had led to a social mentality dominated by anarchy and then to a dispersion in three different directions: Communism – Fascism – Liberalism… Keynes explained the peculiarities in the world economy as follows: In the West, there was “stickiness” in both product prices and worker wages. Especially workers did not want to settle for lower pay. On the other hand, governments had debts as a result of financing war and they did not consent to impose additional taxes, they printed unbacked money instead. This dual mechanism, in turn, caused inflation rates to rise. This was the reason behind the hyperinflation wave that burned up Europe throughout the 1930s.

Keynes argued that governments needed to interfere with the economy and create stimulus for demand. Finally, the Western world reached an agreement and as a result, the “International Money Fund” (IMF) that we know today was created to prevent countries from experiencing balance of payments crises, the “World Bank” was founded to meet post-war recovery needs, and the World Trade Organization was founded to to align customs duty rates across the world. This new global economic order was named the “Bretton Woods System.” Being the war-winning dominant power that it was, the United States made everyone accept the idea of fixing the value of USD against gold. Other countries would determine the worth of their currencies based on USD, while USD would be fixed against gold. This was how the “American Empire” of the second half of the 20th century was established. The establishment of the “American Empire” was owed to the fact that the American dollar became the dominant currency of international trade.

The defeat of fascism became the victory of liberal democracies. The idea of the “freedom and democracy front” created a good common denominator to prevent the outbreak of another war in Europe. The idea of being the cradle of freedom and democracy could perhaps prevent wars and give Europe as a whole another identity above all national identities. In the 50s, the European Council was founded. The Council, of which Türkiye was also a founder, aimed to carry human rights, the rule of law, and liberal democracy beyond national borders.  All member countries were to adopt the same values and a similar law, particularly concerning human rights. Thus, the idea of freedom and democracy would create a supranational identity and law. This was followed by the invention of the social state.

Capitalism further deepened the economy-based social inequalities that already existed.  The rich got richer, and the poor passed down poverty from one generation to the next. Income inequalities rapidly became wealth inequalities because while rich families transferred the wealth they accumulated through their high incomes and capital savings to the following generations, poverty remained the legacy of the poor. Poverty was handed down from father to son.

Capitalists also saw the contradiction that Marx did and some of them sought ways to mitigate it. They did this not just because they were anti-Marxists but because they believed individuals in the society deserved more humane treatment. The concept of social insurance, which means employers and employees deposit a certain amount of money every month as pension and health insurance liability to reduce or polish off the inequalities caused by capitalism, is adopted worldwide today. Countries such as Türkiye create public institutions for social insurance and trade the accumulated funds through public means while other countries may have private sector organizations for the same purpose. The soundness and efficiency of such funds serve as the reassurance of the future of the economic system.

But the “social state” alone is not enough. There is also the need for “social democracy,” which defends these principles in the sphere of politics. Between capitalism and communism, there stood socialism now.  

Just like states, political parties are abstract entities. They are the makings of the human mind. Doubtless, they fulfill a significant need. The essence of the French Revolution and modernist philosophy in the political sense is “liberty, equality, and fraternity,” which is still the official motto of the French state. The concept of “fraternity” here, finds its meaning in nationalism. Members of the same nation are like “siblings” as they are part of the same group. For example, such groups as the Basques in Spain, Bretons in France, Scotch and Irish in Britain, and Kurds in Türkiye will be forcefully included in the fraternity bond if they resist this notion.

Equality means, first and foremost, equality before the law. So, the court does not treat the rich, poor, nobles, or commons differently. It applies what the law says, at least on paper. But soon equality goes beyond just that, it gets diversified, from equal opportunities to gender equality, from equality regardless of ethnicity or race to equal pay for equal work. This concept of “equality” is one of the spheres where the socialist parties did their politics starting from the pre-Marxian times.

Similarly, the concept of “freedom” in the motto is a more frequently visited area by socialist parties because these parties conflict with the financiers of capitalism while advocating equality and they express some ideas that are considered “inconvenient,” even “destructive” for the capital. People must have the freedom to express these ideas. So, liberalism inevitably also remains within the main sphere of politics for socialist parties. So socialist and social democratic parties deem themselves to be related to communism to some extent. Although almost all of them have given up advocating such ideas as “means of production should be owned by the workers” or “private capital companies should be nationalized,” they continue to defend the rights of the worker’s class, more equality, and more freedom. At least, they maintain these claims. Here, socialist and social democratic parties represent those who “cannot benefit enough from the provisions of capitalism.” So, fundamentally, they do not have a problem with capitalism. They just support a more humane and egalitarian form of capitalism. But who represents the other side? Although their names vary from one country to another, conservative or Christian Democrat (the Republican Party in the USA) parties represent those who already take advantage of capitalism.

As long as there was a country called the Soviet Union and the “threat of communism” for the West, political polarization in capitalist democracy was based on economic interest and it was easy to explain in terms of the opposition of the right and left. But today, when there is no “threat of communism,” it is hard to explain the political polarization with the opposition of the right and left.  The leftist, socialist, and social democratic parties are no longer able to represent the new displeased masses brought about by capitalism in the West, which can no longer create welfare for the middle classes. Therefore, political currents that are more introverted, populistic, less ideological, not for globalization, and more reactional are on the rise. I don’t know how accurate would be accurate to keep referring to them as “extreme rightists” altogether.

2024 Global Outlook

I offered a brief account of the causes and outcomes of the two world wars above. Now let’s come to the question everyone has on their minds: Will there be a third world war? I don’t have any research on how concerned we are with this or how often we reflect on how a third world war would affect us, nor do we have such an agenda. But as a global businessperson, I deem it my duty to think about this, lend an ear to likely scenarios, and even encourage others to do so a little bit. Therefore, I listen to many analyses and read many reports, trying to understand them thoroughly. For instance, I believe it is essential to understand the global outlook for 2024 and its reflections on the business world.

Speaking of global affairs, I would like to remind you how we discussed the end of globalization at Davos last year ( I would love to say nothing will be the same in the changing world but, unfortunately, everything is rapidly reverting. The world longs for the past as if it is in a frenzy. We are hearing heroic discourses and warmongers everywhere. Fanaticism and intolerance prevail in both political ends! The claim is all this is done for the people, not for personal interests. However, exploitation and corruption have hit the top everywhere. The hunger for power has reached such a point that human life is looked over and people close their eyes to the cruelties of genocide. Civilians are being bombed. When cannon balls fall short, the global trade of the allies comes into question, and, surprisingly, it all recoils upon their friends.  

To take a look at the business life in this new world:

• Companies are going to have to decide which pole they will collaborate with. Neutrality is no longer an option.

• With increasing polarization, so will geopolitical risks and uncertainties. As Europe regresses, new opportunities will arise in some regions and countries, such as India, Mexico, and some African countries.

• Supply chains and production models will change.

• Lack of global governance will grow. As the effectiveness of global organizations decreases, new trade restrictions and regulations will reverse the globalization effect.

• Companies should have the right information sets and learn to adapt to the spirit of the time to succeed.

Based on this point of view, we could classify the Global Trends of 2024 as follows:  

1. Deepening Separation: Global trade and political systems are evolving into a two-poled world order managed by the USA and its allies on the one hand and by China and Russia on the other. We see that the industries and commercial relations that grew through globalization are increasingly being included in blocks.

2. Systemic Shocks: In 2024, more than 40 countries are having elections. This corresponds to almost 40 percent of the global gross domestic product (GDP) and this will increase geopolitical risks and uncertainties.

3. The Case of Wars: Is the period of peace that followed World War II over now? Wars in which no party can win go on different fronts with the support of their relative blocks.

4. Industrial Transformation: Changes and new restrictive regulations in the global trade system are causing a restructuring of production and supply chains. Companies may be forced to adopt new production models, such as “near-shoring” or “on-shoring,” as a result of political pressures.  

5. Lack of Global Governance: International organizations are losing influence against the increasing polarization and nationalization. This makes it difficult to find mutual solutions to global problems.  

Will the new period be two-poled?

Companies are looking for the answer to this question. There is an increase in the references to geopolitical risks in annual reports. Obviously, new strategies will be needed to overcome new risks and supply chains will be reorganized.

Will Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran be on the same block?

Is the Chinese stock market losing power leading foreign investors to withdraw?

Having a hard time due to the decline in the real estate industry and the decreasing GNP increases its export to the ASEAN region and Russia. I don’t foresee that an economy of such a large scale will have a major problem even if there are some fluctuations.

The Chinese leader Xi Jinping wants to set up a new system in three fields in the world:  

  1. Economic development efforts: Efforts to run trade activities over Yuan by supporting new members via the BRICS system
  • Global Defense Initiative (as an alternative to NATO and UN Security Council)
  • Global Development Initiative (Expanding relations with South American, Asian Pacific, and African countries)

China’s Economic Condition: The deflationist process and the decline in the real estate industry in China adversely impact growth. The decreasing household consumption and investments turning to Europe may challenge the Chinese economy. As the possessor of the world’s almost entire lithium reserves, China is running toward unrivaled leadership in the electric vehicle industry. On the other hand, the regression of Europe, which is China’s largest export market, will have a negative effect on China.

Europe is in two minds about whether to reduce its dependence on China or avoid dependence on the USA. The fantasy-based hope of welfare is dragging Europe into a crisis. Its dependence on the USA in security, Russia in energy, and China in production and raw materials caught Europe off guard. The most affected country has been Germany. The recession impacts companies in Germany and other parts of Europe.

Does Biden imply that the Third World War may break out in Asia Pacific?  

It seems that the USA’s separation from China will gain speed as of 2024 and beyond. It is as if the USA is getting ready for a world with two enemies again and focusing on the economic struggle with the Chinese Communist Party. Is it using Taiwan to stop China in Southeastern Asia on the Pacific? Is the USA replotting its economy and security strategy as of 2024? It is strengthening its ties with Vietnam, Mexico, Morocco, and India.

In the West, India and Mexico are expected to stand out as production bases, posing an alternative to China.

The global economy and geopolitical balances are rapidly changing. Companies and countries have to keep pace with this change.

Türkiye, on the other hand, is expected to continue improving its relations with the EU and USA. It could be thought that the United Kingdom will adopt a soft and pragmatistic attitude toward Türkiye. Will the new world order rest upon blocking and competition rather than a win-win mentality?

An important question: Has Türkiye taken a side? Did it? Should it?

After the elections in 2024, governments, particularly the EU and USA will increase their defense industry investments against growing geopolitical risks.

Global trade routes will be reshaped due to geopolitical tensions and political changes. Countries will have to create new trade routes to be able to access new markets and secure their supply chains.

Putin’s presidency for life indicates that Russia will consistently remain an authoritarian regime. In Europe, the rise of extreme rightist parties poses a threat to the future of the European Union.

If extreme rightist parties achieve a majority in the European Parliament elections, it may impact the core policies of the European Union and its relations with NATO. If Trump gets elected, he is expected to take a firm line against the EU and demand that it reviews its trade with China.

If a candidate, who is against China, gets elected in Taiwan, it may cause regional tension, which, in turn, could negatively impact many countries, including Türkiye. Economic simulations demonstrate that Türkiye would be heavily affected by this war. What are our alternative scenarios? (

The geopolitical risks in South America remain. The chances of Maduro running as a candidate again in Venezuela and starting a war against Guiana may cause new tension in the region. If some countries in South America have a hard time taking a side, that could change the balance. Since such countries as Argentina and Chile, which haven’t taken a side yet, have substantial raw material resources, the USA is trying to get them on its side through significant incentives.

Regional wars that are interconnectedly and increasingly gaining an existential dimension in 2024 threaten the world order. May God forbid, it seems they could trigger each other and lead to bigger and more severe conflicts!

The fact that the war is getting closer to the European borders poses an existential threat to the European Union. The growing migration waves, as well as the economic burdens and security risks in the region, could potentially disrupt Europe’s sociopolitical balances. The EU is trying to get ready for this war by taking such measures as increased military expenditure and mandatory military duty. A new wave of migration from Ukraine and security expenses will place a significant economic burden. Europe’s attitude toward Russia and the USA’s role in NATO will determine the future balance of power.

We could identify a similar approach in the policy Putin adopts against Ukraine and other countries to that implemented by the Ottoman Empire in the past. He is trying to expand his country’s area of influence by invading some countries while keeping some others under control more loosely. When it comes to Türkiye, he adopts a softer attitude and tries to keep the relations warm. However, it is not just up to the two parties to keep this relationship going this way. The possibility of the war spreading to the Baltic in 2024 should not be overlooked. The USA bypasses NATO and signs bilateral security treaties in the Baltic region.

Does the USA plan to give its state-of-the-art military technologies to Greece, the United Kingdom, and Israel? Aligned with the Military Technology Edge concept, this strategy aims to develop the deterrence and defense capacities of the USA’s regional allies. Naturally, the USA does not have enough power to take action in all regions simultaneously. Therefore, is it possible that the USA is trying to clear away the Middle East first to ensure that Israel is able to stand on its own feet?

There are new opportunities in Africa. The increasing impact of Russia on Western Africa could lead to a separation of the region’s northern-southern line.

Is the USA in a dominant position in the global oil and natural gas markets? In 2024, oil prices may remain stable until the elections but will they tend to increase afterward?

How feasible are the decisions made at the climate summit? The petroleum supply continues growing. Will nuclear power gain popularity again?

As the global demand for nuclear energy increases, Russia plays a significant role in supplying raw materials. The USA tries to get ahead in the leadership race in this field by investing in new technologies, such as micro nuclear reactors.

India maintains its rise! India is expected to become the world’s third-largest economy soon. However, the fact that Western countries refrain from repeating their dependency on China could pose an obstacle to India.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, the proposal for USD 95 billion in aid to Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine was accepted.

The USA is in the final phase of banning TikTok for influencing Gen Z and spreading the Chinese image and goals across the nations.

In conclusion, the need for global collaboration and dialogue is more important than ever in 2024 to keep pace with all these changes and come up with a peaceful solution. Meanwhile, after mentioning two highly significant recent developments and sharing the information and questions above, I leave it to your imagination to find answers to the questions of whether the Third World War will break out, and where Türkiye would stand if it did.

Note: This open-source article may be quoted by citing the author. No copyright required.