I'll join everyone else here in pretending that we upheld and didn't violate any rules let alone breaching multiple UN resolutions, supporting, funding, arming multiple repressive dictators and repressive regimes.
Wow. Just wow.
States have always existed in a state of anarchy and act as you would expect them.
Unfortunately the most probable scenario is that it won't achieve neither, instead it will probably crawl along in a middle ground fail to launch state, forever sort-of poor, sort-of irrelevant (but still mostly as a weak ally instead of a weak enemy).
Yes, the election of the current president temporarily pointed Brazil in a different direction (just like the Trump election in the USA), but it is just a blip that Brazil will soon leave behind (like the USA left behind the Trump presidency).
Edit: also, Brazil is 0% imperialistic, has absolutely no territorial ambitions, fairly good relations with all its neighbors. A military that is very defense/deterrence focused, with the only foreign deployments being a few official UN peacekeeping missions.
What exactly is this? Who actually follows the rules?
> first half of this century
Trying to predict global politics for 5 years, let alone 50-100, is incredibly difficult. A prediction that with such a long time horizon is effectively nonsense.
I'm also not sure what you're trying to predict. Are you saying China and Russia will be the near-term invaders, and those other countries will be longer-term invaders?
That could easily be true, or it could be true that China and Russia dig themselves into an isolation hole and India becomes closer with NATO countries instead of more antagonistic.
It is especially egrigeous and baseless to include India, which is a proper democracy, contributes the most to UN peacekeeping missions, and takes in refugees.
Meanwhole 'the West' helped their rival, Pakistan aquire nuclear weapons and conventional arms, which were promptly passed on to Taliban/al quada and used against the West. All because India had the audacity to experiment with socialism.
Hold your horses. My own country, Fiji, has since 1970 contributed more to UN Peacekeeping missions than any other country on earth. We've done that for half a century.
An inward-focussed economic superpower, yeah. (The inward focus is the part of Modi's pitch for India that makes a kind of sense). An enemy of the free world? It's the world's largest democracy with more than one seventh of the population of the free world.
It might have taken Trump only four years to get really close to implementing the collapse of the rule of law in the USA, but the BJP has its work cut out achieving that in India; people will tire of the nonsense.
Edited as to Russia: are you sure it'll be a single, functioning state by the end of this year, let alone for the second quarter of the 21st century? It is heading towards (within weeks of) a kind of economic status that could only be survived by a country that has never experienced modernity, like North Korea.
Kashmir is really an example of what I mean about the likelihood that the BJP will have trouble achieving things on the kind of timescale that Trump was working to. It's an awful, very-long-term conflict in disputed territory, is it not? Things move forward and backwards.
It does not surprise me that I was instantly downvoted for alluding to Trump when defending against the idea that India is going to become an enemy of the free world.
I guess it's because some readers think I am "politicising" it. But you surely shouldn't automatically get to other a democratic nation of 1.4 billion people without reference to the elephant in the room -- that the USA was very recently (perhaps even still is) only one presidential term away from becoming an enemy of the "international rules-based order".
You only have to look at how Trump proposed to deal with Tiktok, or how he mysteriously abruptly exempted ZTE from some sanctions, to understand what I mean -- let alone the even bigger elephant in the room, that he successfully downgraded GOP 2016 platform language about the defence of Ukraine and literally coerced Ukraine's leadership with the threatened withholding of congressionally-approved support.
The reality is that this discussion about potential threats to the free world or rules-based international order simply can't be one-sided like this. It's an absurdity.