The world stage is characterized by swift changes. The global conflict potential has risen, as attested by the expanding number of (violent) conflicts. These conflicts are fought with a rapidly expanding array of means, in a rapidly expanding number of domains. Emerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs) catalyse several long-term trends, such as the intensifying technology arms race, while our warming climate increasingly operates not only as a green­house but also as a geopolitical pressure cooker. In this treacherous, shifting setting, anticipation and improvisation become essential skills for all geopolitical actors. To develop these skills, foresight is necessary.

The Clingendael Strategic Monitor 2025-30 is an actorcentric foresight study which aims to shed light on the way in which eleven selected geopolitical actors might impact Dutch national security and the international rule of law. Instead of attempting to “forecast” one determinate future, this study intends to “foresee” a range of possible futures. These possible futures (“scenarios”) yield the following conclusions.

With unipolar power receding and multilateral decision-making in gridlock, state actors increasingly turn to the promising “middle level” of minilateralism – shifting coalitions of a handful like-minded players. Minilateral coalitions have become the steering committees of world politics and seem likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

From a Dutch and European perspective, the United States, including their zero-sum approach to China’s rise, are rapidly becoming a geopolitical problem of the first order. The “Make America Great Again”-movement was never an anomaly, but instead an integral part of American political culture. Both the USA and China will likely ramp up pressure on the rest of the world to “pick a side,” leading to acute strategic dilemmas in Europe and elsewhere.

The middle powers are here to stay. They hold the key to the geopolitical future of all, as well as the balance of power in an era of heightened great power rivalry. Their status as the deciding factor brings them new leverage and greater influence on the world stage.

The tech industry has emerged as a geopolitical actor in its own right. For liberal democracies, the achievements of tech companies present a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they symbolise the dynamism and creativity of “free” societies. On the other hand, they potentially undermine the “liberal” and/or the “democratic” character of our societies. Elon Musk’s current power as a tech mogul, Washington insider and quasi-prophet is unprecedented in history.

Disruption, in both an entrepreneurial and a geostrategic sense, have become permanent facts of daily life. AI technology, the increasing resort by state actors to proxy agents, rising digital and physical attempts at covert manipulation, and the intensifying battle of narratives all contribute to a broad sense of societal instability and social dislocation.

For the West, (perceived) hypocrisy has become an exceedingly dangerous attack vector. Both the “axis of upheaval” (Russia, China, Iran, North-Korea and Venezuela) and a range of more “neutral” developing countries frequently voice their frustration with a “hypocritical” world order. While such accusations carry an element of unavoidability and legitimacy, Western powers must develop a mitigating strategy if they wish to continue to cooperate effectively. One approach is to develop a more consistent narrative about who we are, what we value, and how much we are (not) willing to sacrifice for those values.

With the decline in the relative power of “the West,” persuasion and understanding will become far more central than they have been so far. Knowledge of alternative viewpoints and ideologies will become an essential predictor of geopolitical success. Understanding the interests of various stakeholders will be equally important, for similar reasons.

By acting both preventively and reactively, displaying resilience and adaptability, and honing the art of anticipation and improvisation, geopolitical actors can thrive – even in a changing world.