The Chain Reaction Toward World War III Has Begun, Says Professor Jiang Xueqin

Professor Jiang Xueqin, known for his work on geopolitical forecasts using game theory, argues that we are already on a path toward a potential World War III. He believes that historical patterns and the interests of various global actors, rather than a crystal ball, can help predict future events. This perspective suggests a grim outlook, with several escalating conflicts and shifts in global power dynamics pointing towards a more dangerous world.

• The US National Security Strategy signals a shift from multilateralism to pure national self-interest, potentially leading to conflict.
• The Russia-Ukraine war is nearing its end, with Europe considering deeper involvement.
• Escalation in the Middle East between Israel and Iran is ongoing and could spread.
• Historical patterns of rising powers challenging existing orders suggest a period of instability.
• Western societies are showing signs of decline, making them less equipped to handle global challenges.

Professor Jiang points to the recent US National Security Strategy as a key piece of evidence. He notes that the document clearly states the previous order, where multilateral organizations played a significant role and the US acted as an enforcer, has dissipated. Now, the focus is solely on national self-interest. This means America will prioritize protecting its own sphere, particularly the Western Hemisphere, as outlined by the Monroe Doctrine. This shift is already visible in actions like the consolidation of US naval assets in the Caribbean and the seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers. Jiang argues this enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine will inevitably bring America into conflict with South American nations who see their sovereignty threatened.

The conflict in Ukraine is described as essentially over, with Russia reportedly starving on the battlefield and Ukrainian morale collapsing. Despite this, European nations are pushing for Ukraine to continue fighting. There’s even talk of confiscating Russian assets held in Europe to fund the war effort. Jiang suggests Europe’s motivation is a fear that a peace treaty would allow Russia to consolidate its gains and later challenge European dominance. This leads to Europe providing loans to Ukraine, essentially prolonging the conflict and drawing Europe closer to direct involvement.

The situation in the Middle East is also a major concern. Jiang highlights the ongoing escalation between Israel and Iran. He notes that peace treaties between Israel and groups like Hamas and Hezbollah seem unlikely to hold. Israel appears poised to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas is unlikely to disarm, fearing annihilation by Israeli proxies. The recent incidents, like the shooting of a nuclear physicist in the US and the tragedy on Bondi Beach in Australia, are being used by Israel to blame Iran, even without concrete evidence. This suggests a deliberate effort to create public anger against Iran, potentially leading to further conflict.

Jiang draws parallels between the current global situation and historical events leading up to World War I and II. He points out that a shift in global power, where a rising power challenges the existing hegemonic order, often leads to instability and conflict. For instance, Germany’s rapid economic growth in the late 19th century upset the British-dominated order, eventually contributing to World War I. Similarly, China’s economic rise today is challenging US primacy. The historical strategy of powers like Britain and later the US has been to prevent any single power from dominating the Eurasian continent. This often involved sowing chaos and division. Today, America is seen as employing similar tactics, disrupting trade and using allies as proxies to counter China’s influence, particularly in resource-rich regions like South America.

Adding to the instability, Jiang observes signs of decline within Western societies. He lists several indicators, including over-urbanization, declining birth rates, massive economic inequality, reliance on proxies in conflicts, and general decadence. He argues that these societies are not merely in a period of decline but are on their deathbeds. This internal weakness, he suggests, makes them less capable of handling the external challenges they face. The lack of a cohesive national will to fight, coupled with a focus on individualistic pursuits, makes it difficult for Western nations to rally for a large-scale conflict. The fear of speaking out on controversial topics further erodes social cohesion and the ability to address problems openly.

Jiang believes that the current trajectory, driven by a combination of shifting global power, historical patterns, and the internal weaknesses of Western nations, makes a large-scale conflict increasingly likely. He dismisses the idea of a simple peace treaty or a return to a previous status quo. Instead, he sees a world heading towards prolonged conflict, potentially lasting for decades. The US, in particular, is seen as determined to defend its empire, even if it means using allies as proxies and engaging in aggressive tactics. The hope for a peaceful resolution, he suggests, is fading, and the world must brace for a more turbulent future.