dkorolkov y24dkorolkov 20251222 153 144 97 2 91 80 29 :!php ~/www/soosh/xml2mbz_overwrite_offline.php ~/www/ictnle.com3/sdata/inc_xml_mdl/course_log_dkorolkov_2025-2.xml :!php ../../../moosh/moosh.php course-restore --overwrite ../mbz_bup_offline/course_log_dkorolkov_2025-2.xml_2mdl.mbz 144 :!php ~/www/soosh/xml2mbz_update_onl.php ~/www/ictnle.com3/sdata/inc_xml_mdl/course_log_dkorolkov_2025-2.xml (send the link to your google doc (in edit mode!) icons8-reading-100.png quarterly test Prepare for quarterly test vocab pre teach functional language grammar focus smartphone or tablet device listening Download onto your phone or tablet and listen carefully. ]]> sbook_plugins/wordlist_generated_from_xml_clog_sbook_for_sbook_session.inc sbook_plugins/payment_history_generated_from_xml_clog_sbook.inc Avito Dmitry Skorolkov dskorolkov@avito.ru 20250721 39 yrs old https://youtu.be/49RT6SQ8n0Y?si=wRpxvuWeKyzlX8pJ @wlredeye +7 903 518 01 35 pg 25 The danger of losing touch with reality market_leader_3rd_advanced_students_book_pg24-29_clean_energy_case_study.pdf Scottish accent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4k8dR04TzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jHfY0dDZxA https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-imposes-sanctions-icc-judges-us-treasury-says-2025-06-05/ https://www.thetoptens.com/nations/most-influential-country-history-world/ Video. Fact check: Are most refugees in Europe of Muslim background? https://www.euronews.com/video/2025/08/15/fact-check-are-the-vast-majority-of-worlds-refugees-of-muslim-background EuroVerify investigates a claim shared by a politician from the far-right Portuguese Chega party, stating that 85% of refugees are of the Muslim faith. A politician from the far-right Portuguese Chega party, which is known for its anti-immigration policies, alleged in a post shared on X that "85% of refugees are Muslim" on 1 August. Chega has previously faced accusations of Islamophobia, with the party's leader André Ventura having called for the "drastic reduction of the Islamic presence in the European Union.” Chega party's lawmaker Pedro Frazão also claimed that "instead of seeking asylum" in other Muslim countries, these individuals "choose to flee to the West." Both claims are difficult to back with data, as there is a lack of precise and up-to-date data cataloguing refugees’ religious affiliation. symbol 00:09 02:00 Read More However, it is evident that wars, economic crises and natural disasters impact the makeup of the global refugee population. ADVERTISEMENT While the United Nations produces a vast amount of data on refugees and forcibly displaced people worldwide, it is heavily reliant on government data. While some countries provide information on refugees' religious affiliations, others do not. Where did refugees come from in 2024? According to the UN refugee agency UNHCR, the global refugee population, including people in need of international protection, reached nearly 42.7 million in 2024. In addition, there were 73.5 million people displaced within the borders of their own countries (IDPs) and 8.4 million asylum-seekers. How many refugees and forcibly displaced people are there? How many refugees and forcibly displaced people are there? UNCHR Within Europe, Germany was the European country which hosted the most refugees in 2024 — which has been the case since 2015. Research conducted by the German government published in 2021 revealed that between 2013 and 2019, 69.7% of the refugees it hosted were Muslim. However, these figures predate Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, when millions of Ukrainians were forced to leave the country at war. The latest data from the UNHCR showed that in 2024, nearly seven out of 10 of all refugees and people in need of international protection originated from Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Venezuela and Ukraine. The main religion in Syria, Afghanistan and South Sudan is Islam, but in Ukraine and Venezuela, different branches of Christianity are the predominant belief. ADVERTISEMENT Refugees wait in a crowd for transportation after fleeing from the Ukraine and arriving at the border crossing in Medyka, Poland, 7 March 2022. Refugees wait in a crowd for transportation after fleeing from the Ukraine and arriving at the border crossing in Medyka, Poland, 7 March 2022. AP Photo Given that Ukrainians and Venezuelans made up nearly one-third of all refugees and other people in need of international protection in 2024, it is "unlikely" that 85% of refugees are Muslim, a UN spokesperson told EuroVerify. Although a country may have a Muslim-majority population, this does not mean that all refugees who originate from there are Muslim, and vice versa. In addition, those who nominally belong to an ethnic group associated with Islam might not be actual believers. Muslim-majority nations top the list of host countries Contrary to the claim that refugees of Muslim background predominantly seek refuge in the West, Germany is the only European country which features among the seven countries which have hosted the most asylum seekers since 2015. UNHCR data from 2015 to 2024 UNHCR data from 2015 to 2024 UNHCR Iran and Turkey are the two top countries where the most refugees sought asylum between 2015 and 2024. Meanwhile, four out of the seven nations which hosted the most asylum seekers in this period — Iran, Turkey, Chad and Pakistan — were Muslim-majority countries, which debunks the claim that refugees who identify as Muslim only seek refuge in the West. https://www.euronews.com/2025/08/15/trump-putin-summit-in-alaska-one-meeting-different-goals?utm_source=vuukle&utm_medium=talk_of_town --- Global Ethics Forum TV Show George Friedman, founder and CEO of Strategic Forecasting, Inc., asks: What's in store during this new century? Which nations will gain and lose power? How will new technologies change the way we live? He has some predictions that may surprise you. Introduction JOANNE MYERS: Good morning. I'm Joanne Myers, Director of Public Affairs Programs, and on behalf of the Carnegie Council I'd like to welcome our members, guests, and C-SPAN Book TV. Today it is a great pleasure to host one of our country's most astute geopolitical forecasters, George Friedman. Mr. Friedman is the founder and CEO of STRATFOR, a private global intelligence firm which has an unmatched ability to provide clear and unbiased perspective on the relevant geopolitical issues of our world today. As an avid reader of his reports, I personally have found his analysis of international events to be always thought-provoking and engrossing. In addition to identifying and explaining the major concerns of our times, Mr. Friedman is the author of four books, including the widely acclaimed America's Secret War, in which he identifies the United States' most dangerous enemies, delving into everything from presidential strategies of the last quarter-century, to hidden reasons behind the attack of 9/11, to the true aim of the war in Iraq. He has also published numerous articles on national security, information warfare, computer security, and the intelligence business. While much of the world may be focusing on Barack Obama's first 100 days, there is one person who has set his sights further afield. In his latest work, The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century, our speaker provides a lucid projection for the change we may not necessarily believe in but the change we can expect in the years to come. The desire to predict the future is a innate human trait. Nevertheless, our speaker has no crystal ball and is no seer. But he does have the rare ability to take geopolitical patterns and use them to forecast future events. Still, you may ask, how is Mr. Friedman able to make these predictions? To begin with, these projections are not as random or unpredictable as they appear, because what our speaker is really trying to do, as he says, is transmit a sense of the future. His goal is to identify the major tendencies, whether geopolitical, technical, demographic, cultural, or military, in the broadest sense and to define the major events that may take place. Accordingly, he believes that so long as you can adhere to the notion that the fundamental human condition remains constant, you can predict certain changes—or, as he says: be practical; expect the impossible. As Mr. Friedman takes us into the future, describing what the world will look like in the 21st American century—and he does emphasize the word "American"—his predictions may surprise you. Please join me in welcoming a very unconventional thinker who is bound to make you envision the future in a way you have not done before, our guest today, George Friedman. Thank you. Remarks GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Thank you for that very kind introduction. I hope I can live up to it. I am very, very honored to be here at the Carnegie Council. There are few venues that I would want to speak in more. Thank you for having me. I have written a book, called The Next 100 Years, which is probably the most presumptuous book you can possibly imagine. In one sense, it is, certainly—how could I possibly know what's going to happen in the next 100 years? But in another sense, the reason that I have tried to create this book is to get a sense of this moment. When I talk about the next 100 years, what I really want to think about is: what are the forces that are real and permanent—not today's headlines, not today's angst, not today's crises, but what are the things that are going to be discussed 50 years from now, 100 years from now; what are the forces that are developing underneath the surface of our global system that are going to be driving events? So if we started back in 1900, and I said to you in 1908 that, "Look, by the year 2000, all of the European empires will be gone, the Hohenzollerns will be gone, the Hapsburgs will be gone, the Romanovs will be gone, the Turks will be gone; the great event of the century will be the rise of American power; China, Japan, Korea, these will be great economic powers; and in the Middle East it will be Israel that will be the great military force," they would carry me out, give me medication, and assure me that if I tried to help myself, I could be helped. But it's not just the 20th century. If at the beginning of the 19th century I would say to you, "Well, by the end of the century the great new global power will be the United States"; if I said that, in 1800, "the Ottoman Empire is finished, you won't be worrying about it; the British were going to conquer Africa and, by the way, India as well"—again you would think me mad, because the worst way to approach thinking about the future is to use common sense. That is the only, and overriding, principle that I have discovered in history, which is that if I stand at any point—if I stand in 1980 and tell you that by 1990 the Soviet Union would collapse, or in 1960 that the United States would fight a war with the communists, but it would be the Vietnamese and we'd lose—if I did any of these things, you would be convinced that I were mad. Therefore, if I am going to think about the 21st century—well, first off, I would be mad to want to—but I have to suspend common sense. In other words, the attempt to extrapolate, simply and simplistically, that the future will be like now only more so is, I think, inherently wrongheaded. The CIA recently published a study, which said that India and China will be emerging powers. What the CIA did was simply draw straight lines. But the century that we've passed is a century full of discontinuities. So the question that I am asking here is: What are the discontinuities that will occur in the 21st century and, equally, what are the forces that create those discontinuities? So I guarantee you that the concrete suggestions I have about the century will sound completely mad—and perhaps they are—but they are not intended to be. They are no more mad than understanding this century in 1900. So what are the underlying forces that are framing the century? Let me begin with the first one which I think is critical to understand, which is the end of the population explosion. Everywhere in the world birth rates are collapsing. It is projected by the United Nations that population growth will go from 100 percent in the past 50 years to only 50 percent by 2050, and by the end of the century 10 percent growth. To replace population each woman needs to have 2.1 children. In most of Europe, that number is 1.5, 1.6, 1.7. In Japan, it's similarly low. It is, therefore, arithmetically certain that the populations of the leading countries that we are looking at are going to decline dramatically, as well as age, but that once the baby boom has passed away—to talk about me, and that's fairly clinical, when I'm gone, the population decline will accelerate. Nor is it likely to reverse. In agricultural society or early industrial society, having a child was profitable—you sent him to work at an early age; when you retired, he would take care of you. Today, if you talk about conspicuous consumption, nothing is more expensive than a child who remains a child into his mid-20s, when he tries to find himself and you have to finance it; or if he picks a profession that doesn't quite work out and comes home. In other words, having children is a luxury, not a necessity. People are not going to indulge this luxury excessively, and, therefore, there are fewer children. And that's not simply here. There is nowhere in the world where the birth rate is not in precipitous decline. In the advanced industrial world, it is already in that position. Middle-tier countries, like Mexico or Brazil, are readily approaching levels of zero population growth. And even in areas where population is still growing rapidly, such as countries like Bangladesh, Congo, third-tier countries, you have a fall from a 7.5 birth rate to about a 5.0 birth rate. So we are seeing a transformation of what I will call the European model of demography. Europe begins, from my point of view, in 1492 with the first globalization of the economy, because the first global economy that was ever created was the European. Until that point, the Aztecs had no idea there were Mongols; the Mongols were really not connected to the Zulus. It was the European imperialists that tied all of them together and made the world aware of itself, created a global system instead of a group of isolated systems. And part of the European model was this population explosion, which came about for a host of reasons, from health care to different models of production and so on. But the basic assumption that is built into the economic system was that there would always be more people—more workers, more consumers, more soldiers. And so in the history of Europe the armies got larger, the economies got larger, the world got larger. That system is ending. It is ending because the European model is in decline. In fact, one would say that Europe is in decline, because if I were to point to the single most important event of the 20th century, it would be the end of the European imperial system. The collapse of the British empire, the collapse of the French empire, the Dutch empire, the Belgian empire, had a more profound effect on the way the world worked than any other single event. The origin of that collapse was the fact that the Europeans, while they conquered the world, also waged an endless civil war against each other of ever-intensifying proportions, with larger armies and so on, until in the 20th century they simply ripped themselves apart. They could no longer dominate the world. The fact that the Europeans are no longer fighting is of course gratifying. But as I like to say, they are exhausted and call it virtue. After the 20th century, it is not clear to me that the Europeans as they gave up their empire are the same Europeans that landed in their boats in Latin America, burned them, and proceeded to conquer empires. They were barbarians, and they had the virtues and the vices of barbarians. Now, while the European Age was critical, Atlantic Europe—the countries on the Atlantic—dominated the world, and the heartland of the international system was of course the north Atlantic. Whoever controlled the north Atlantic controlled Europe's access to the world. Whoever controlled Europe's access to the world could shape the empires. And of course, for hundreds of years the Spaniards, the French, the Dutch, the British, fought for control of the north Atlantic. But in 1980 an extraordinary event happened in human history: for the first time ever, trans-Pacific trade equaled trans-Atlantic trade. It was somewhere around 1980. It's hard to pin it down; it could have been 1981, 1982. That was an extraordinary event that we all experienced. But think what it means. It means that at that point not only was Europe no longer the pivot of the global system, nor was the north Atlantic by itself the key to global power. There were two keys: the Atlantic and the Pacific. Therefore, by definition, any power that was native to both bodies of water was in an extraordinary position, particularly if it had the wherewithal to exploit that. Now, South America, for reasons of geography I won't go into here, can't be native to both the Atlantic and the Pacific. It looks like one continent. It really isn't. It is divided and subdivided and can't be one. But North America is the power that is native to the Atlantic and the Pacific and, therefore, has the lowest cost of projecting power into both basins. So the cost for a European empire to maintain a major naval presence in the Pacific is extraordinarily high, the cost for an Asian power to maintain an Atlantic presence is extremely high, but the cost for the United States of maintaining both, while high, is not extraordinarily high. Therefore, I would argue that North America became, particularly with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the centrality of the European conflict, the center of gravity of the international system, in the same way that Europe had been the center of gravity of the international system for 500 years. From 1492 to 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, almost exactly 500 years, Europe had been the pivot. Now it had become North America, and, as it happens, the United States is the dominant power for this century in North America, and, therefore, it is the center of gravity of North America. That does not necessarily mean it is eternal. It doesn't even mean necessarily that it is powerful by itself. It just means by the geographic facts of the way the world works it is in the right place. It is also an extraordinarily powerful country because it dominates a united continent, it has no continental enemies, it has not in 100-and-some-odd years had a domestic war to devastate it, which differentiates it from almost all other great powers, and, therefore, it is extremely wealthy. We speak about all of the crises of the United States, all of which are very serious, but the fact remains that the United States' economy is larger than the next four economies combined: Japan, China, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Combine all of them and they're not quite as large as the American economy. We speak of the de-industrialization of the United States, and that certainly has happened. American industrial output is about $2.8 trillion a year, much less than it used to be, which means that American industrial output is only larger than the combined outputs of China and Japan. It is utterly vital to understand the scale of the American economy to begin to measure American power. It is extremely important to understand that—I won't call it orders of magnitude greater—the power of a united continent native to both the Atlantic and the Pacific is extraordinarily more powerful than those of other countries. And you add to this one other fact: never before in human history has a single power controlled all the sea lanes in the world. The United States' Navy may not be everywhere, but it can be anywhere. And no other naval force, no matter how combined with allies—if you throw all of the world's navies against the U.S. Navy, it doesn't begin to measure up. Which means that if you are in a dhow in the Arabian Sea, if you are in a junk in the South China Sea, if you are in a cabin cruiser in the Caribbean, you are under the surveillance of American space-based systems and liable to interception by the U.S. Navy. This has two obvious outcomes that are very important: We get to invade other people; they don't get to invade us. Now, that is not a trivial advantage if you've ever been invaded. It does not make us wise, it does not necessarily even make us effective, but it gives us a unique advantage. The second thing, which matters in the course of a century—and this really is important—is that it has the potential to reshape patterns of international trade if it chooses. The United States throughout the 20th century, the second half in particular, has operated under the principle of a free-trade regime in which its Navy was primarily used to facilitate international trade. It did not seek to develop any special advantage from that, save those sanctions and blockades that we occasionally imposed for immediate political purpose. But there is no reason to believe, with that enormous power, in the 21st century that the United States won't choose to reshape international trade if it finds itself under extreme economic or political pressure. One can have power that isn't exercised. That, by the way, is the definition of soft power. When you talk about soft power, it is what you could do that you don't do. That gives you the opportunity to be gracious, friendly, and pleasant. So when we speak about the United States having soft power, that soft power derives from these absolutely overwhelming facts. I say these because these facts are obvious, noncontroversial, and yet continually neglected in the face of what are serious but passing problems. I say this at a time when we are all in a great economic crisis. But I recall another one, being old enough to remember the 1970s. I remember when we had a housing crisis because interest rates were 15 percent and you couldn't buy a house because they were at 15 percent; and unemployment was over 10 percent at the same time; and inflation was 11 percent or 12 percent; and there was an oil shortage and you were standing on lines; and we had lost a war in Vietnam; and everybody knew the United States was in absolute decline and that something terrible was going to happen. And then, the Iranians, as the Iranians tend to do, intervened, kidnapped some embassy personnel; we had a catastrophic outcome of Desert One; and there is no question that the United States was a declining power. Three or four years into the Reagan Administration, and "morning in America," whatever he was talking about, the fundamental reality of American power reasserted itself. In other words, the underlying reality of the size and magnitude of both American economic and military power reasserted itself, and what seems so absolutely obvious, the decline of the United States, turned out not to be so obvious. I've just written an op-ed piece where I begin with a section from Jimmy Carter's famous "malaise" speech, in what I say is "the president said this," and I don't tell anybody that it's not Barack Obama until later on. We Americans vastly tend to overestimate our problems and the rest of the world eagerly overestimates our problems. The great desire—and I speak as someone born in Hungary—of every European is that the United States should suffer the same fate as Europe. Not yet. So then, what is it that we can expect? Well, firstly, I argue in the book, to go very quickly, that the U.S.'s hottest war is not a 100 years' war; it's about over. Certainly, there will be radical Islamists who are prepared to commit terrorist acts—there have been for 1,000 years. But—and this is what is very important—the United States is withdrawing from Iraq (that was set in place by Bush) and in due course we will be out of Afghanistan. Certainly, what Alexander the Great couldn't do and the Russians couldn't do and the British couldn't do, we're not going to do. What comes next? Well, when I started to write the book, it was fairly controversial, because I asserted that the Russian empire was reasserting itself. This is now far less controversial. Never take two years to write a book. But, clearly, the United States and the Russians are in a minor competition. This is not a cold war, in the sense that the Russians are not supporting wars of national liberation everywhere. This is not a near-nuclear confrontation where the hour hand of the scientists is one minute away from midnight. Nevertheless, it is a very serious confrontation, because as soon as Russia reunites itself—its border is with Europe, and on the northern European plain this time the border is not at the Fulda Gap in central Germany; it is on the Polish border. The Russians are extremely interested in what the Americans are doing in Poland, such as giving them ballistic missile defence systems, F-16s, and all sorts of other things. And, of course, the Americans are extremely interested in what the Russians are doing in Belarus, Ukraine, and everywhere else. And each is trying to influence the other. There will certainly be a period of extreme tension. I doubt very much that the Russians have the ability to maintain a long-term competition with the United States. But, certainly, they have certain advantages. The fact that the Europeans are utterly dependent on them for their energy means that European foreign policy must take into account the consequences of alienating the Russians. We saw that with the Germans when war broke out in Georgia; the United States pressed forward with the argument that there should be NATO expansion, and Chancellor Merkel went to Saint Petersburg, where she met with President Medvedev and declared that she had no current interest in NATO expansion. And the Russians were very thoughtful about that and pleased, and they only cut off gas for three weeks this time. Undoubtedly, they wanted to influence the Ukranians, and if the Europeans got the message that the Russians had them in a very uncomfortable position vis-à-vis the Americans and the new administration, they didn't really object to that at all. So the Russians and the Americans are going to be competing again. That's yesterday's news. I don't think that they will survive. So let me go to the radical parts of the book. What are the great powers of the 21st century? Bear in mind, please, that in 1900 some of the predictions would have been insane as well. Well, I am not impressed by China. I mean China is overwhelmingly a third-world country, where the majority of people, the vast majority of people, earn less than $2,000 a year, if that much. It is two countries; it is two countries at odds. And China is essentially an extension of the American economy—when we catch cold, they get pneumonia, as they say. And when a Chinese worker becomes unemployed, he does not face problems with his 401(k). He had been earning $60, $70, $80 a month, and he is facing problems with malnutrition. The Chinese are terrified of unemployment, as they should be, working very hard to keep it from that. It costs them a great deal of money and inefficiency in keeping factories going. These are self-limiting factors of the Chinese economy. The Chinese have done extraordinarily well for 30 years. The probability that they will do equally well for the next 30 years is as likely as the idea that in 1985 Japan would be a new super-state vastly exceeding the United States. We tend to draw straight lines where straight lines shouldn't be drawn. If I take a look at Asia and I say "Who is the great power in Asia?", the answer is rather self-evident: that is Japan. It is the world's second-largest economy. It has a substantially effective navy, it has a good air force, it has an army larger than the British Army—and that's when their constitution demands that they not have any of these things. Imagine what will happen when they change that constitution. Japan is a great power. That it chooses to act in modest and careful ways should not delude anyone in the intrinsic power that Japan has. So I expect Japan to be a player, to say the least, in the 21st century. The second, a little odder, is Turkey. Turkey is the world's 17th-largest economy. It's larger than Saudi Arabia. It has an excellent army. It lives in a sea of chaos, and, whatever internal problems it has—and all countries have internal problems—it is not in chaos. You see Turkish influence spreading in the Balkans; you see it in the Caucasus; you see it to their south in Iraq and in the negotiations they are carrying out between Israel and Syria; you see it in the alliances they have created (for example, the alliance with Israel); the extreme caution with which Iran treats Turkey under any and all circumstances. You see a country that is emerging. But when you remember that for 500 years Turkey was the center and the organizing principle of the Islamic world, the Ottoman Empire, that shouldn't be that odd. The last 100 years were odd, while Turkey enclosed itself, and the Anglo-French, if you will, organized the region, the Balkans and also the area south in the Middle East. But as that area leaves the control of others, including the Americans, the Turks become much more important and much more influential. My third and final choice will be the most controversial: Poland. Why? Well, firstly, because Poland faces Russia. The north European plain has no natural boundaries—the boundary now is drawn on the line Poland/Russia/Belarus/Ukraine—and Poland is the key if Russia is not to return to central Europe, which it may not want to but it may wind up doing that kind of en passant. Now, the United States is extremely interested in Poland, and that has a certain impact on a country. When a country becomes of fundamental strategic importance to the world's leading power, able to make massive economic concessions and technology transfers, that has a real consequence. As an example, I'll give you South Korea. If I said to you in 1950 that South Korea would be one of the most robust, dynamic economies in Asia, you'd laugh. Why did that happen? Well, it happened because South Korea was of fundamental interest to the United States. The United States had to make certain of the viability of South Korea. South Korea benefited wildly from that relationship. Another example is Israel. There was no intrinsic reason why Israel would have emerged as anything but an economic basket case save for the financial and economic transfers the United States chose to make. And these are excepting the obvious cases of West Germany and Japan. Strategic relationships with the United States, not poverty relationships with the United States, but the places where the United States badly needs a country, transforms an economy, particularly when you have a disciplined and capable work force, which the Poles have; and especially when you are sandwiched between two countries that may well cooperate and for whom you have no great love. I mean if you ask a Pole about whether you'd prefer a Russian or a Germany, they'll say "an American." Last time it was the French. They prefer anyone. And it is not clear that Germany is prepared to participate in other competition with Russia, that it is in a position to do so. It is certainly not clear that Russian and American interests in this matter are going to go hand in hand. Therefore, the United States either concedes the possibility of a German-Russian entente, which would have geopolitical implications for the United States that would be substantial, or the United States has a relationship with Poland. Clearly, it was the decision of the Bush Administration to have that strategic relationship with Poland. The Obama Administration is now reconsidering it. Whether or not there is a missile defence system or not is really inconsequential. Poland is a critical country. So my view of the middle of the century is that a set of new powers will emerge. Well, that's not exciting news. New powers always emerge. Powers rise and fall. My reason for Japan is: Why shouldn't the second-largest economy be a great power? My reason for Turkey is: Consider how you bring order to the Middle East; it will not be the United States doing it, and one country has a vested interest in stabilizing it and the power to do so, and that's Turkey, an historical choice. And Poland is simply a historical and geographical accident. It is where Russia meets the West, and, therefore, the place where the Americans will play the game they play the best, which is technology transfer and kick-starting strategically located economies. The United States' power will grow continually. Since 1870, the single most important fact of the world in this sense has been the continual growth of American power measured in every way. From where it was in 1870 to where it is today is just an extraordinary story. When you actually sit down and graph the economic growth of the United States during this period, it's interesting to note that the Great Depression is kind of a bump, not a major event. When you look at it from the point of view of 100 years or 150 years, things that are enormously significant, such as the Spanish-American War, usually aren't. You should have read about the Spanish-American War. It was in all the papers. Elections ran around it. It was a driving issue. Things come; they pass away. Some things are permanent. I have tried to look for what is permanent. What's permanent for me is the shift in the demographic system, the rise of American power. Finally, I would point out that the United States has a population density of about 34 people per square kilometer. Japan has a population density of 365 people. Germany has a population density of 285 people. The Old World is highly, intensely populated. The United States is relatively unpopulated. In a world of declining populations, the United States knows how to live in a continent with relatively few people, and also knows how to welcome immigrants very effectively. That gives it two additional advantages. This is not a jingoistic argument, that we are more virtuous than anybody in the world, that we're smarter than anybody in the world. It is simply a geographical fact. We are in the right place at the right time. And it is an attempt to put thing in perspective. Things that look absolutely horrendous right now won't look so horrendous in five years. To check that out, go back to 1978-1979, the last time we thought the world was ending. Let me stop there and invite questions. JOANNE MYERS: Well, I read somewhere that you would be satisfied if you could explain something about how the world works today and how that in turn clearly defines how it will work in the future, and I think you have succeeded. I'd like to open the floor to questions. Questions and Answers QUESTION: I’d like to bring you back into Central Asia and the question of oil. For a long time, until about six or seven years ago, the United States was noticeably absent from Central Asia. Their missions and embassies were understaffed. There was no policy that one could see vis-à-vis Central Asia. It was when Madeleine Albright first went to the region that a panic policy began to emerge. QUESTION: Professor Sam Huntington came out with a very influential article in Foreign Affairs in the early 1990s where he essentially argued that now that the East/West conflict was over, now that the ideological conflict between communism and capitalism had abated, that the new way we were to look at the world was frictions across civilizations, frictions across cultures. He outlined a number of different civilizations and argued that that would essentially be the straw that stirs the international drink. Others argued that no, economics, economic frictions, would be more important in understanding how the world was ordered. I wanted you to comment on the Huntington thesis, in terms of what is it essentially that will drive these countries and what will be the dominant motivations in international affairs over the next, say, 20 or 30 years? GEORGE FRIEDMAN: I disagree with Professor Huntington. I admire him. But when you talk about "Islamic civilization," you can't talk about it as a single entity. You have to draw some distinctions between Sunni and Shiite, Arab and non-Arab, secular and religious, varieties of religion, and so on and so forth. When I look at the Islamic world, I think in terms of Egypt and Syria and Iran, I think in terms of nation-states, and I think in terms of the competition between, for example, Egypt and Syria or Egypt and Iran. My answer to that question is that economics doesn't exist. I mean I can't imagine the American economy without American politics, certainly today, when the Federal Reserve and everybody is getting into the game. You can divide academic departments very nicely. Economics departments don't talk to the political science departments. In real life, if you are a banker in New York today, you had better be aware of politics and economics. And you might want to keep the military in mind too; that might affect you as well. So the idea of the primacy of economics as a freestanding event is unpersuasive to me because I've never seen economics freestanding. The idea of civilizations is persuasive until you drill down to the next level, when the civilizations dissolve into competing entities, and where a country like the United States, or any country really, can manipulate the differences very effectively. To give an example, the United States is very closely aligned with Egypt. Whatever happens to Mubarak is another question. So to say that the United States is standing in friction with the Islamic world, when the United States has extremely close relationships with Turkey, Egypt, and so on—these are major countries—it's very hard to really recognize the world functioning. I regard the basic engine of the international system, what has been really since the 18th century, and in a certain sense for a very long time, the nation-state. The nation-state, for reasons we can't go into right now, remains the driver. In order to understand the next century, I think very traditional methods have to be used, which is what I have tried to do. QUESTION: One or two points. First, about power, your definition of power and soft power. Professor Nye, who wrote the book with that title, has a totally different version of soft power than what you said. You kind of said you hold it—military power—behind your back but you don't use it. He actually talks about persuasion and so on, dealing with countries without trying to impose our way. Then, there is this question of whether this is going to be America's century or whether, as other people have said, we live in a multipolar world or a nonpolar world. So it's not so much whether it's China or Japan or Poland or Turkey, but whether we have to work in a cooperative world, because most of the issues we are dealing with are not power issues, along the lines of what you've said, but things like climate change, environmental catastrophe, migration, and so on. I also have some other thoughts, but I wanted tocapture my questions about your thesis in that way. GEORGE FRIEDMAN: I, of course, know Professor Nye's view. My view was shaped in the Bronx. In the Bronx, we had a saying: "You can get more with a smile and a gun than you can get with a smile alone." [Laughter] When someone tries to persuade me, my question is, "Well, why should I listen to you?" To which the answer may be, "Because I'm enormous, virtuous, and smart, and if you listen to me, you will be better off." But I find that in running a business, the "or else" is more persuasive. I tend to disagree vehemently with Professor Nye's view. The idea that cooperation takes place in the world is of course true. I mean take a look at the period where British power was enormous. The British were also cooperating on a micro and a macro level. Their power in India was tremendous. That did not mean that they did not have alliances, manage relationships, or try to create mutual benefits. The choice is not between power and cooperation—the two always coexist. The question is what is the shaping force. So we speak of climate change, which is a perfect example. Until the United States chooses to participate in that climate change, because the United States produces 26 percent of the world's gross domestic product, all the conversations that people have are fairly meaningless. It's not going to happen. It may be that Belgium agrees to something, and it may be that Singapore believes in something, but it really is the United States that has to be persuaded. So there certainly is a matter of international cooperation, but the question to ask in these matters is: Who is dispensable and who is indispensable? The argument that I am making is in the 19th century when you talked about the concert of Europe, some countries were dispensable (the Serbs) and some you really had to take into account (the British). We happen to be in that position now. So my view is, again, more traditional, perhaps less imaginative. QUESTION: You have described the fortuitous situation of America's geographic position and its industrial power and so on. But much of a country's stature in the world depends on what goes on inside of that country—its internal psychology, its demographics, its economic growth. So could you address those kinds of questions with respect to the United States in the next century? GEORGE FRIEDMAN: In my book, I talk about American culture, and I describe three states of culture, if you will: Barbarism: The belief that the laws of your village are the laws of the universe; Decadence: The belief that there is no law—relax; and An enormously complex civilization, believing deeply in something yet being open to the possibility that you are in error. To me that happened in Europe in the 18th century. It was an unstable concept that blew itself apart. It drives itself into places. I would not even regard America yet as a barbaric country. We are an extraordinarily young culture. To understand the United States is to understand a 15-year-old. It ranges from traumatic hubris and belief that everything is possible, to total despair and suicidal conviction that nothing is possible and I've completely failed, in between rage attacks. If you've ever had a 15-year-old at home, you will recognize it. There are two things to say, which is that when I traveled the world there was a conviction that the Americans were barbaric imperialists, a conviction that the Americans had completely bungled the world because of their parochial lack of understanding, and that in fact they would never recover. This was 1975. So when I traveled in Europe in my life there has been a constant conviction, insistence, belief, about the insufficiency of American culture and everything else. I will say profoundly that I think Americans know Europe much better on the whole that Europeans know America. Some of the things that Europeans think about America are funny. But there is a simple truth to be said: we are an immature country. I think of us as Baby Huey, if you remember the old cartoon—way too big, much too clumsy, way too emotional, too sure of ourselves, too depressed. It is very difficult to get the measure of this country at this point in time. I think the 21st century will be a period where American culture begins to mature, that it begins to reach the point where it has both barbaric self-confidence, if you will, but at least has a sense of perspective, because the one thing to be said about the United States as I look at it is the lack of perspective, how many times this century we believed it's all over for us, and how many times we believed that we could do anything we wanted in the world. So I don't see any solution to our culture except growing up. I doubt that my book contributes anything to that, but if it does it would be nice. QUESTION: I was wondering. There is one country that you haven't mentioned at all, and that is India. Could you tell us where you think they will be? GEORGE FRIEDMAN: India's problem is it is not one country. It is a group of countries driven together by the British with a central government but with tremendous power still vested in the states and the state bureaucracies. These states have unique ideologies, some of which are very open to foreign investment and some of which are violently opposed. Doing business in India is extraordinarily difficult. The bureaucracy is not inefficient. It is set up in various states to limit investment and so on. We do not see the forces inside of India that will change this basic dynamic. So we see that, whereas the Chinese Central Committee in 1975 put in motion a set of national decisions as to what was going to happen, there is no similar central authority in India to do that. And therefore, while superficially, given size and everything else, one would say that the Chinese surge should be replicated by the Indians, there are self-limiting factors in India that will prevent that. That isn't to say that they aren't growing. It, however, does mean that there are structural limits on how quickly they can grow, from land use issues, to mobility of labor issues, to a bunch of other issues. India is a country where the armed force in many ways is going to be the most advanced and capable, because it is simply run by the central government, whereas the fragmentation of the economy is very severe. Therefore, we really don't look at India as a country, without a massive revolution that I don't foresee in India, emerging in that role. QUESTION: Thank you for a most provocative and fascinating analysis, which has really woken up a lot of us, despite the snow and everything else. There is one area you haven't had a chance to touch upon, and that is the question of energy. We say we have a crisis with oil. There are many people who are trying to find alternative sources of energy. How do you see it from the long-term perspective? GEORGE FRIEDMAN: I'm glad you asked. Clearly, the hydrocarbon age is over. It is going to die a slow death. I'm delighted to see in Texas I can get gas for $1.50 a gallon. But it's over. What takes its place? It's nuclear power, which is extremely expensive to invest in; it's really had to do with fluctuations in cost, and it takes a long time to bring on-line; and there's solar power—wind power or sea power, these are all varieties of solar power. Land-based solar power has built-in inefficiencies. The three are: night, clouds, and, most importantly, the space in which land-based solar collectors have to be put in. So if you ever calculated current technology and tripled its value, you'd cover Nevada to power the United States. Now, Nevada may be no loss to you—I personally like to gamble—but the point is that the environmental effect of land-based solar energy is massive free land use and damaging the environment. But solar energy is necessary. The place where I think solar energy will go by the middle of the century is in space, because in space you've got a lot of room, you don't have night, and you don't have clouds. You also have a robust military program on the part of the United States for developing space-lift capacity. Now, one of the interesting things about major social advances in the United States in the 20th century is how much it was driven by military considerations—from the Internet, which begins as a military project; to the interstate highway system, which was conceived of as a way to get troops from one side of the country to the other; to the airline industry, which was really driven by the U.S. Army. Some of the greatest innovations of our time are really funded and underwritten for military uses. Everybody has wondered what we are going to do in space. It's kind of as if Columbus came here, looked around, and went home, and said, "So what do I do next?" Well, the answer in space is space has one thing that's of extraordinary importance, and that's energy unlimited. Now, how do you get it to the face of the Earth? You use two technologies: (1) tethered technology—you literally drop a cable to the face of the Earth; or (2) you use microwave radiation to ground collectors. Lest you think I'm totally insane, which is possible, this is a NASA project that is underway. NASA is funding the Space Solar Energy Project, which is underway. There is nothing in what I've said here technologically that's a breakthrough. These are known technologies. The primary issue is: how do you underwrite the cost of space-lift? One way you do it is by dropping the cost, which is why Jeff Bezos is doing this. Jeff Bezos and the head of Virgin Airlines, Richard Branson—all of them are in this field, and they'll say, "Well, it's tourism." Come on, guys. You know what you're doing it for. Drop space-lift costs and you can be Saudi Arabia. That really is what they're looking at. My expectation is that (1) the pressure on the ecology will decline as there are fewer humans—not quickly, but that would be one of the things—and (2) the technological fix is going to come in the context of U.S. control of space, which the United States will happily jump into because it will also put us in the position of making Germany dependent on us instead of on the Russians, which will be very nice, and will also drop the price of fuel here. So there are a lot of advantages to that technology. For those of us who didn't imagine the PC, this is actually not as radical. It's where I think we are going to go. QUESTION: None of the three countries that you highlight is a member of the Security Council. I was just wondering how or where the United Nations might fit into your vision of the next 100 years—or does it fit into your vision of the next 100 years? GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The United Nations will remain what it is, the largest and best-funded NGO in the world. When everybody agrees the United Nations should come in, they will come in. Occasionally, they will facilitate some things. But—this is my discussion of soft power—the power of persuasion that the United Nations has is secondary to the power of other things. I have no idea institutionally what the future will be, nor whether or not anybody will reorganize the Security Council—I suppose they should. But, I guess, my view of the United Nations is that it is a useful tool in the general conflict and competition and cooperation between nations. It's a facilitator, not a critical player. QUESTION: I'm a graduate of the Navy and I fought both in the Pacific and in the Atlantic. I'm also a graduate of the Naval War College. I have never heard Alfred Mahan articulated as well as you have just done. GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Thank you. You noticed. QUESTIONER: Our Navy got its real start in the war of the Barbary pirates. But, not only that, it was the first time, and ever since, we have been involved in the Middle East, through every single president that has been a president of the United States. My question is a sea change that is possible in the next century that you didn't mention. It's partly because of some of the things that a previous questioner mentioned. I think that Wilsonian self-determination is coming to a total end. I think the reverse may be starting to happen, that nations will become larger by becoming bigger than their neighbors and joining forces with their neighbors. One of the areas that I see as a possibility—I hope a possibility—is in the Middle East. To me, an article recently by Gaddafi was a very interesting article, the idea being bruited more and more, that there will be one Isratine and not two separate states in the Middle East. This may be one of the sea changes that is coming. GEORGE FRIEDMAN: When the Israelis and Palestinians say that I'll be interested. I would be more interested in Gaddafi suggesting amalgamation with Egypt. But that he left out. I mean look, there is a great experiment with multinationalism going on in the world. One form of multinationalism was the imperial model. Another form was the alliance model. Now we are watching whether a group of countries that have historically been at war with each other can forge themselves into a multinational state. I am speaking, of course, of Europe. So far what we have seen the Europeans do is reach the point at which some of them have agreed on the common currency; none of them have agreed on a common economic policy; some have not agreed to the common currency; others have not agreed to be members of NATO. We are in a transition period. Wilsonian amalgamation, which is what I think the Europeans are trying to do, hangs in the balance. I think the latest economic crisis and the decisions of the Europeans to go with national solutions rather than a single, integrated, multinational solution was a breakpoint in European history. This was their test. If they could say, "Look, we are going to leave national sovereignty issues aside and money will flow across borders; others will join us who are not part of the Eurozone now," I would have been more impressed. What I saw in October was a reassertion of nationalism on economic areas. What I have seen in NATO is a reassertion of nationalism. I don't think the answer is there yet. We will see how it will unfold. But at the moment I feel fairly pessimistic about that possibility. If the Europeans at this historical point can't do it, I don't think the Israelis and the Palestinians will pull it off. But I do thank you for noticing Alfred Thayer Mahan, because in fact the unstated father of what I am talking about is Mahan, who, if you don't know, was certainly the greatest strategist in American history and in many ways the founder of modern grand strategy, and certainly the Naval War College. JOANNE MYERS: With that note, I'd like to thank you for taking us off the beaten track. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/series/39/20090128-the-next-100-years-a-forecast-for-the-21st-century -- GEORGE FRIEDMAN: In my book, I talk about American culture, and I describe three states of culture, if you will: Barbarism: The belief that the laws of your village are the laws of the universe; Decadence: The belief that there is no law—relax; and An enormously complex civilization, believing deeply in something yet being open to the possibility that you are in error. To me that happened in Europe in the 18th century. It was an unstable concept that blew itself apart. It drives itself into places. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/series/39/20090128-the-next-100-years-a-forecast-for-the-21st-century parochial lack of understanding we are an immature country. I think of us as Baby Huey, if you remember the old cartoon—way too big, much too clumsy, way too emotional, too sure of ourselves, too depressed ------ UDP protocol for audio video communication in video conferencing tools todo Lexical material: reporting paraphrasing ]]> 20260109_to_be_confirmed 18:05-19:00 1.5 tbc What is a civilised society? (2/2) By the end of this session you will have studied Possible individual practice Goals: improve active listening, note-taking, oral delivery Stages: ✓ watch a YouTube video → focus on 10-12min max at a time (e.g. per day) ✓ take notes → look up new expressions ✓ summarise orally the contents → record yourself on video (max 3-4min long) ✓ analyse your performance → rehearse areas which could be improved e.g. try adding a touch of humour or sarcasm to the original meaning Repeat the process trying different registers (e.g. informal, neutral, professorial...) → if possible, share a link to some of your video recordings zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 146 1 What is a civilised country? active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png Should we achieve welfare and social equality by taxing the wealthiest, or guarantee security & consumerism at the cost of soft authoritarianism? In many countries, business and investment income are taxed at lower rates than labour income. As investment income constitutes a larger share of household income at the higher end of the income and wealth distribution, a progressive labour income tax schedule does not necessarily translate to a progressive tax system overall. (...) Many opponents of taxing the rich more also support the view that, as their tax burden is lowered, the rich will work harder, invest more, create more jobs, and generate wealth for the greater good of the society: that their wealth will ‘trickle down’. 〆false - no evidence Taxing the rich (more) Open Access İrem Güçeri , Joel Slemrod Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 39, Issue 3, Autumn 2023, Pages 399–405, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grad033 Published: 18 August 2023 Taxing the rich (more) Answer the questions.]]> What is a civilised society? ✓ values respect for individual rights and freedoms ✓ promotes equality and justice for all ✓ prioritises education and healthcare access for everyone ✓ celebrates and embraces cultural diversity ✓ sustainable practices ensure environmental responsibility ✓ open dialogue and civic engagement encourage participation ✓ global cooperation and understanding strengthen relations civilised society = community promoting human rights, equality, and respect to maintain order How is a progressive taxation rate politically motivated? ✓ imposes higher rates on the wealthy ✓ aims to reduce income inequality and fund public services ✓ political ideologies influence tax policies based on social justice ✓ voter demographics shape taxation preferences and decisions ✓ political parties advocate for tax changes to gain support ✓ public opinion can affect the implementation of tax reforms progressive taxation = tax system where higher income levels incur higher tax rates Are taxes in Europe effective enough to maintain some social contentment? ✓ taxes fund essential services like healthcare and education ✓ high taxation rates can lead to public discontent if mismanaged ✓ social welfare programmes aim to reduce poverty and inequality ✓ balancing tax burdens ensures fair contribution from all citizens ✓ citizens generally expect quality services in return for taxes ✓ effective allocation of funds is crucial for social satisfaction social contentment = sense of satisfaction and happiness within a community regarding welfare Is there a societal trend in global shopping but not global sharing? ✓ global shopping culture emphasises consumerism and brand loyalty ✓ online shopping offers convenience and access to diverse products ✓ financial capabilities drive purchasing behaviours and trends ✓ social media promotes individualism over collective resource sharing ✓ community-based sharing initiatives often receive less attention ✓ economic disparities can hinder sharing economy growth global sharing = cooperative distribution and use of resources among communities worldwide Are current generations keen on a more hedonistic lifestyle than their elders (e.g. kidult)? ✓ current generations often prioritise personal pleasure and experiences ✓ kidult culture reflects a desire to blend adolescence with adulthood ✓ social media influences lifestyles and expectations around enjoyment ✓ economic growth allows for more disposable income and leisure activities ✓ previous generations tended to focus on stability and responsibility ✓ trends indicate a shift towards valuing fun over material success hedonistic lifestyle = way of living that seeks pleasure and enjoyment as primary goals Should we achieve welfare and social equality by taxing the wealthiest, or guarantee security & consumerism at the cost of soft authoritarianism? ✓ taxing the wealthiest can promote welfare and social programmes ✓ inequality can reduce democratic participation and social mobility ✓ security and consumerism may lead to loss of personal freedoms ✓ balancing individual rights with societal needs remains complex ✓ soft authoritarianism often justifies control for perceived stability ✓ a fair taxation system can enhance social cohesion and trust social equality = state of equal access to resources and opportunities among all societal members 145 progressive taxation = tax system where higher income levels incur higher tax rates social contentment = sense of satisfaction and happiness within a community regarding welfare hedonistic lifestyle = way of living that seeks pleasure and enjoyment as primary goals 144 20251222 18:05-19:00 1.5 active Predictions for year 2026 By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 143 The Geopolitical Outlook in 2026 active 1 textbook visual aid Visualizing 2026: Five Foreign Policy Trends to Watch What major trends will shape world events in the year ahead? Five CFR experts weigh in. Article by Heidi E. Crebo-Rediker, Benn Steil, Erin D. Dumbacher, David M. Hart, and Linda Robinson https://www.ey.com/en_gl/insights/geostrategy/geostrategic-outlook ]]> 142 The Accelerating Race for Critical Minerals active 1 textbook visual aid According to the U.S. Geological Survey’s most recent list, sixty minerals and rare earth elements are “critical” to national and economic security due to their importance in both defense and civilian industrial sectors and vulnerability to supply shocks. To compound the risk of over-dependence on China today, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that global demand for many of these critical minerals will rise significantly by 2030. https://www.cfr.org/article/visualizing-2026-five-foreign-policy-trends-watch ]]> 141 The End of Arms Control active 1 textbook visual aid In February, the last remaining arms control treaty on limiting nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia is set to expire. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) bilateral agreement aims to maintain strategic stability and avoid a renewed arms race. With enough nuclear weapons to hold each other at risk already, the logic goes, the two countries could each meet their national security aims with less than 1,550 deployed nuclear weapons. https://www.cfr.org/article/visualizing-2026-five-foreign-policy-trends-watch ]]> 140 The Rise of the ‘Electrostate’ active 1 textbook visual aid A new buzzword appeared this year in the global energy and climate policy lexicon: “electrostate.” The term contrasts with “petrostate,” and its archetype is China. One meaning of the term rests on the share of electricity in a nation’s final energy consumption. High-income countries tend to use more electricity because the sectors that consume fuels directly—including agriculture, mining, and manufacturing—are a smaller slice of their economies, while the service sector, which relies primarily on electricity, is larger. By this logic, China, a middle-income country, should lag behind the United States and the European Union, but it has recently surpassed both. https://www.cfr.org/article/visualizing-2026-five-foreign-policy-trends-watch ]]> 139 electro-state geopolitics = describes the global power shift where influence moves from oil (petrostates) to electricity, with electrostates being nations dominating the clean energy transition by controlling critical supply chains (minerals, batteries, solar/wind tech) and rapidly electrifying their economies, like China, becoming indispensable global players. It's about leveraging technology, grids, and energy security for national power, replacing fossil fuel leverage with control over electrons and the tech to manage them 138 layoffing making them redundant I'm quitting by on my own will ]]> 20251219 16:35-17:30 1.5 active How to gain visibility and grow your career? By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 137 active 1 textbook How can you gain visibility and grow your career? ✓ focus on executing important projects ✓ communicate your contributions ✓ build relationships across your organisation ✓ actively participate in meetings ✓ seek opportunities to collaborate with others ✓ showcase your skills and value Why isn't visibility just showing off? ✓ should be an indication that reduces uncertainty about the impact of your contribution ]]> 136 135 20251217 17:05-18:00 1.5 active What is a civilised society? (1/2) By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 134 1 What is a civilised country? active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png Should we achieve welfare and social equality by taxing the wealthiest, or guarantee security & consumerism at the cost of soft authoritarianism? In many countries, business and investment income are taxed at lower rates than labour income. As investment income constitutes a larger share of household income at the higher end of the income and wealth distribution, a progressive labour income tax schedule does not necessarily translate to a progressive tax system overall. (...) Many opponents of taxing the rich more also support the view that, as their tax burden is lowered, the rich will work harder, invest more, create more jobs, and generate wealth for the greater good of the society: that their wealth will ‘trickle down’. 〆false - no evidence Taxing the rich (more) Open Access İrem Güçeri , Joel Slemrod Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 39, Issue 3, Autumn 2023, Pages 399–405, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grad033 Published: 18 August 2023 Taxing the rich (more) Answer the questions.]]> What is a civilised society? ✓ values respect for individual rights and freedoms ✓ promotes equality and justice for all ✓ prioritises education and healthcare access for everyone ✓ celebrates and embraces cultural diversity ✓ sustainable practices ensure environmental responsibility ✓ open dialogue and civic engagement encourage participation ✓ global cooperation and understanding strengthen relations civilised society = community promoting human rights, equality, and respect to maintain order How is a progressive taxation rate politically motivated? ✓ imposes higher rates on the wealthy ✓ aims to reduce income inequality and fund public services ✓ political ideologies influence tax policies based on social justice ✓ voter demographics shape taxation preferences and decisions ✓ political parties advocate for tax changes to gain support ✓ public opinion can affect the implementation of tax reforms progressive taxation = tax system where higher income levels incur higher tax rates Are taxes in Europe effective enough to maintain some social contentment? ✓ taxes fund essential services like healthcare and education ✓ high taxation rates can lead to public discontent if mismanaged ✓ social welfare programmes aim to reduce poverty and inequality ✓ balancing tax burdens ensures fair contribution from all citizens ✓ citizens generally expect quality services in return for taxes ✓ effective allocation of funds is crucial for social satisfaction social contentment = sense of satisfaction and happiness within a community regarding welfare Is there a societal trend in global shopping but not global sharing? ✓ global shopping culture emphasises consumerism and brand loyalty ✓ online shopping offers convenience and access to diverse products ✓ financial capabilities drive purchasing behaviours and trends ✓ social media promotes individualism over collective resource sharing ✓ community-based sharing initiatives often receive less attention ✓ economic disparities can hinder sharing economy growth global sharing = cooperative distribution and use of resources among communities worldwide Are current generations keen on a more hedonistic lifestyle than their elders (e.g. kidult)? ✓ current generations often prioritise personal pleasure and experiences ✓ kidult culture reflects a desire to blend adolescence with adulthood ✓ social media influences lifestyles and expectations around enjoyment ✓ economic growth allows for more disposable income and leisure activities ✓ previous generations tended to focus on stability and responsibility ✓ trends indicate a shift towards valuing fun over material success hedonistic lifestyle = way of living that seeks pleasure and enjoyment as primary goals Should we achieve welfare and social equality by taxing the wealthiest, or guarantee security & consumerism at the cost of soft authoritarianism? ✓ taxing the wealthiest can promote welfare and social programmes ✓ inequality can reduce democratic participation and social mobility ✓ security and consumerism may lead to loss of personal freedoms ✓ balancing individual rights with societal needs remains complex ✓ soft authoritarianism often justifies control for perceived stability ✓ a fair taxation system can enhance social cohesion and trust social equality = state of equal access to resources and opportunities among all societal members 133 progressive taxation = tax system where higher income levels incur higher tax rates social contentment = sense of satisfaction and happiness within a community regarding welfare hedonistic lifestyle = way of living that seeks pleasure and enjoyment as primary goals 132 20251216 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Why is the US deporting foreign green card holders? | Current Trends in Moscow Real Estate Prices By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 131 active 1 textbook Green card applicants face wave of arrests — Who is being detained? Why is this happening? Is this legal? Green card applicants face wave of arrests — Who is being detained? Why is this happening? Is this legal? Updated13 Dec 2025, 08:27 AM IST People hold banners as they gather near a General Services Administration parking lot to prevent US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers from leaving for an immigration raid in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on November 29.(REUTERS) In the past few months, immigration lawyers in the United States have reported several dozen cases of arrests of foreign spouses of Americans during interviews at US Citizenship and Immigration Services offices. Scores of such cases belong to San Diego alone, while cases have also been reported in New York City, Cleveland and Utah, according to an NBC report citing immigration lawyers and local news. This marks an “unprecedented” diversion from a decades-long policy, the news outlet reported quoting lawyers, whose clients are panicked that they might be detained even when they are eligible to obtain legal permanent US citizenship and have no history of crime. Why are Trump officials arresting green card applicants? The detentions of green card applicants is one of the latest tactics of the Donald Trump administration to target legal ways for immigration as it tightens scrutiny of those who seek permanent residency. Defending the arrests, officials have said several of them happened because the people had fallen out of status by overstaying their visas. However, experienced attorneys argue that this has never been an issue and the Congress grants exceptions to spouses of American citizens looking for permanent residency. Are the arrests legal? According to immigration laws, immediate relatives of US citizens, such as spouses, have legal rights to get a green card even if they were in the unlawful immigration status at the time of filing for permanent residency. “There was a carve-out that was intended for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, including spouses. This was or is the legal path for them to adjust their status. This is going about doing things ‘the right way,’” Julia Gelatt, the associate director of the US immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute, was quoted as saying by NBC News. Since the process to obtain green cards takes months, people “could very easily fall out of status right in the process of waiting for that green card through their marriage”, she said. How many green card arrests have been made so far? The exact number of arrests of green card applicants is not easy to quantify, attorneys cited by NBC News said. However, several spouses of US citizens fall in the category of overstaying their visas — a category due to which green card arrests are being made. Hundreds of thousands of people are currently at the same stage of their green card application processing, according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Service data, meaning that more arrests could come in the upcoming days. What's the stance of Trump administration? In a statement to NBC News earlier in November, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said that unlawful immigrants will face arrests. The ICE said it “is committed to enforcing federal immigration laws through targeted operations that prioritise national security, public safety, and border security.” “Individuals unlawfully present in the United States, including those out of status at federal sites such as USCIS offices, may face arrest, detention, and removal in accordance with US immigration law,” its statement said. Key Takeaways The recent arrests mark a shift in immigration enforcement, targeting even those eligible for legal permanent residency. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have specific legal rights that should protect them from deportation under current immigration laws. The arrests have caused panic among applicants and raised questions about the legality of the current administration's tactics. https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/green-card-applicants-face-wave-of-arrests-who-is-being-detained-why-is-this-happening-is-this-legal-explained-11765592178374.html ]]> 130 active 1 textbook 129 128 is looking looks much more reliable ]]> 20251212 15:35-16:30 1.5 active Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? (3/3) By the end of this session you will have studied George Friedman on the Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? If the peace proposal currently under negotiation to end the war in Ukraine feels like déjà vu, you're not alone. Throughout the year, hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough have repeatedly surged and faded. But with the surprising terms of the latest proposal now on the table—and U.S. President Donald Trump hinting that this may be a "now or never" moment—the world is asking whether a real path to peace finally exists. Is the deal workable? How are Europe's leaders responding? And what fundamentals of the war risk being overlooked amid the political noise? Joining host Christian Smith to break down the proposal, assess the geopolitical dynamics shaping the negotiations, and explore the evolving economic relationship between the US and Russia and China is GPF Chairman George Friedman 20251126 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0qvJfstDNw → watch the video → answer the questions zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 127 1 Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-movie-100_white.png Isn't the war in Ukraine a sign of Russia's existential quest for a new identity? Perhaps involving isolating itself technologically & ideologically, to some extent like China? George Friedman on the Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? If the peace proposal currently under negotiation to end the war in Ukraine feels like déjà vu, you're not alone. Throughout the year, hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough have repeatedly surged and faded. But with the surprising terms of the latest proposal now on the table—and U.S. President Donald Trump hinting that this may be a "now or never" moment—the world is asking whether a real path to peace finally exists. Is the deal workable? How are Europe's leaders responding? And what fundamentals of the war risk being overlooked amid the political noise? Joining host Christian Smith to break down the proposal, assess the geopolitical dynamics shaping the negotiations, and explore the evolving economic relationship between the US and Russia and China is GPF Chairman George Friedman 20251126 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0qvJfstDNw → watch the video → answer the questions]]> If the peace proposal currently being negotiated to bring the war in Ukraine to an end feels a bit like deja vu to you, you're not the only one. The sense that peace might be close has come and gone several times this year. But although the initial terms of the deal came as a shock to many, US President Donald Trump is implying that it could be a now or never moment. So is the deal workable? Is it a stitchup? Or is it just plain and simple real politique? [Music] Well, here to discuss the proposal and to remind us of the fundamentals in this war is geopolitical futures chairman and founder George Freriedman. George, welcome. Now, we should say that things are moving fairly quickly and on Monday when we are recording this uh there were meetings happening in Geneva where Marco Rubio was there and there were a number of changes it seems to the plan. It may be more of a 19point plan than a 28-point plan. Things are moving uh fairly rapidly as we say, so just keep that in mind. But George, to start off with, let's let's stick with the fundamentals. I suppose we've covered this war a number of times on this podcast this year. Um remind us of how you see the current situation in Ukraine. 1 Well, there two things. First, Russia has failed to achieve its objectives in this war. His objective was to conquer Ukraine. That's visible by how they attacked it. They didn't just attack the eastern part that's now into question. They also attacked down the center of the country and toward Kiev, the capital. If all of these had succeeded, Ukraine would have been in the hands of Russia. The attack on Kiev failed. So did the central attack. Only one really worked out, the eastern. So we look at the original Russian intentions. They failed pretty badly. For over 3 years, they have fought and this is all they've gotten. 2 On the Ukrainian side, at the same time, there's no way they're going to be able to drive the Russians out of the land they can't occupy. The Ukrainian army is smaller. its ability to take casualties less and is much harder to carry out an attack than a defense. So in effect, neither side has won this war. And when there is no victor in the war, what always happens is a negotiated settlement or some frozen war. A frozen war is dangerous because it could reerupt at any point. And therefore, a negotiated settlement is the most reasonable outcome. And that's what being on here to find a common ground that both the Ukrainians and the Russians could live with. And look, looking at this plan right now, could this be the negotiated settlement that works, do you think? I mean, just give us a broad overview of what you make of the plan. Well, it basically doesn't make Ukraine happy and it doesn't make Russia happy. Therefore, on the whole, it should be successful. It is impossible to make both sides happy. Russia has to agree that after three and a half years, all that is caught is a relatively small part of Ukraine, the area of Luhansk and Donetsk. In to incentivize them, they're being gi. But on the other hand, they will not be permitted to put troops in Donetsk. It will be formally part of Russia but not under the military control of Russia. So that's a very important thing to understand which is how little the Russians gained from this war. How many men fell in this war women too I suppose. And that in fact they failed. On the other side, there is the fact that the Ukrainians simply don't have their own power to drive the Russians back. It's very it's much easier to defend than to attack. As I said, the option of continuing the war is that the Americans and the Europeans send troops into the Ukraine, engage the Russians, defeat them, and try to avoid a nuclear if response from the Russians. Okay? So when you look at this, all the people who say this is really unfair. Well, this is going to be what brings Russia to the table and to sign. And if they're not willing to do that, there is another option. Let's go to war. Let's land troops. Now, since none of the European countries want that, nor are they really capable of fighting the war, the other alternative is the Americans should engage in the war. From our point of view, we've engaged in so many wars since World War II, most of them ending badly, that we have no appetite for a war in Ukraine. Therefore, there is no possible solution without some concessions to the Russians that they wouldn't have had if they hadn't attacked, which is if you feel that shouldn't be rewarded, prepare to enlist. If you feel that better the war should end on these terms, well, that's another thing. There are details of it that have to be worked out of course and other dimensions of it but I see no other way to end this war but a negotiation and a negotiation in which neither side will be happy. Let's look at the Oh, I want to look at the Russian perspective in just a couple of minutes but let's just pick up on a couple of things you said there George. I mean, so as you say, it it's basically not going to happen that Western countries will be sending their troops in and to fight their war. Apart from anything else, there's the risk, as you say, of nuclear war stemming out of a direct confrontation. But many argue either A that better military support for Ukraine would change the game and mean that Ukraine can actually win or B and perhaps a combination of A and B that Russian that that pressure on the Russian economy, there's pressure on Russian oil hitting um inside Russia with long-range missiles is making a difference and that will eventually lead to Russia folding and giving up. Do do you give any credence to that point of view? Well, I don't know exactly what kind of weapons we would introduce that would induce the Russians or force the Russians to concede. In other words, uh we've done a pretty good job arming the Ukrainians. But in the end, in occupying territory is the poor bloody infantry that has to do it. The ground has to be taken even if you use missiles and so on and so forth. And it should also be remembered while the Russians tried to attack Kiev with missiles, the Ukrainians were not forced to concede. In the history of warfare, air strikes such as on London by the Germans or on Hamburg by the Americans did not force them to give up. We bombed Hanoi continually. They did not give up. The idea therefore that if we used deep air strikes on Russian targets they would give up. Well, that's not what the Ukrainians did. What they did was fought harder. So the idea that we could have a bloodless intervention where no Western lives, no American lives, no European lives are put at stake is just a fantasy. The Ukrainians have fought as well as they could. They fought better than anybody thought they would. Nevertheless, they have much smaller force than the Russians. The Russians badly. And what about the economic side of things where, you know, there's there's an idea, there's an argument from some quarters that Russia's just a year or two away from some form of collapse. That means they can't continue the war. Well, it's an amazing thing. World War II, many countries had their economies wrecked, particularly the Russian economy. They still fought the war. The choice between poverty and foreign domination is on the table and historically foreign domination is the one that people dislike the most. Particularly the Russians have a strange ability to fight in term in a context of economic collapse. That's how they fought World War II. Now will they fight it again in the same way with the same passion? I don't know. But neither did I people claiming that. So certainly the economic pressures are one of the things that stopped the Russian offensive in Ukraine in the sense they could marshall the force and could not if they went too deep survive that. But at the same time there are limits to economic pressure. There are also incentives in economic possibilities. So if the intention here is to end a war that neither side can win and could go on for a very long time is going on far longer than anybody thought it would particularly the Russians because they thought they'd win rapidly. Surprised the Ukrainians that it did so well I think and certainly no one 3 years ago would have thought that this war would still be waging in the fourth war, fourth year. And therefore the ideas that there are other options than a set of negotiated peace is is very hard to fathom. So and in a negotiated peace of this sort neither side will be happy. It's certainly giving an interesting there's interesting conclusions to be drawn on the effects of economic sanctions and that sort of thing. It's interesting to be interesting to see what happens with the sanctions on oil as well if this continues. But looking from the perspective of Russia now, I mean, as we've talked about before, Putin Putin in many ways needs an exit from this. That means he can save face. That means he can sort of sell to his the people inside the Kremlin and the country at a whole that this hasn't been a total disaster. Does this exit give Putin what he needs to do that? Well, the war hasn't been a total disaster, but it's mostly been a disaster. In other words, again to look at it correctly, they attacked to take Kiev. They entered Kiev and were driven back. They attacked from the south from Crimea. That was blocked to. So when you look at this, on the whole, this war was not lost by the Russians, but nevertheless a defeat for Russia. This was not the Russia that when I was younger and standing to fill the gap expected the Russians to be like. It was a failure for the Russians. It was a success for the Ukrainians because they survived. That alone makes them the winners of this war. So in my point of view, it may save a little face for Putin. But in fact this sort of settlement he could have had years ago without what now is million Russian casualties. So I mean the main concern for many uh many in the west and in Ukraine of course is this the idea that this is effectively some form of 1938 Munich Munich agreement an appeasement deal. And if if the deal goes ahead, all Putin will do is take over the more advantageous positions in defence, rebuild his forces and attack from a more powerful position in a couple of years time. I mean, do you think that that concern is legitimate that that could really happen? Oh, it could really happen, but the fault would rest with Europe and the United States. Part of this agreement, article 5, is that the United States and Europe in the event that the Russians renewed the attack would guarantee Ukrainian security that is intervene. So if the Europeans remain as feckless as you will in terms of rapidly evol re revolutionizing their military and if Trump is lying about what he's saying here which have cost him tremendously in the United States. Uh the question here is not Russian treachery which they're certainly treacherous. It is the question of whether or not Europe and the United States will live up to this promise. I think the United States will live up to it because we have the force to do so and also tend to respond to double crosses that way. Will the Europeans build up their military so they can keep that end of the bargain as well? Therefore, the question is not whether or not he will double cross us. It is whether we will let him be able to double cross us. And because he can't attack next time and lose this badly, assuming that he survives this fundamental defeat, it has to be understood that this is not in any way like the Munich deal. This is a recognition by the Russians that they lost the war by not winning it the way they wanted to and came out with this little. So I don't see really this as in any way appeasement of the Russians. It's simply a recognition of reality and the question of whether Russia attacks or not is really up to the United States and especially the Europeans. Well, and on that I mean I think there's a very interesting moment coming here particularly for Europe in terms of the type of security guarantee it gives to Ukraine because as we've talked about before and as people know very well you know Europe has been slow off the mark to put it mildly in many respects here. So that will be really interesting to see what they're willing to do. Well I always wonder about the Europeans. Obviously, one of the things they love to do is condemn Trump for offering this appeasement. On the other hand, there been in the past fairly slow in mobilizing their own capabilities. So, oddly enough, this is if unless they are prepared to enter the war at this time and res the Russians, the possibility the Russians might do a little better. But if they actually want peace, then they have to prepare for war. And so this is really a test of what Europe is. Is Europe anything more than a continent name? Is it a united entity? And does it have the will to stand guard in the gates? And this is from my point of view an existential moment for the Europeans. Their choice is either to end the war or to pursue it. If the decision is we should not in any way make concessions to the Russians to end this war because that's appeasement, fine, send your troops in. But Ukrainians by themselves cannot defeat the Russians, nor can they push them out of this area. So while it may be that this appears to be appeasement, it's appeasement only if both sides don't live up to the agreements. And one of the agreements is a fundamental one that the United States and the Europeans guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty. This is perhaps a bit we're going down a bit of a path here, but this perhaps a cold war mindset from me, I suppose. But when I hear the idea of a European Russian confrontation or Western Russian confrontation, I think nuclear war. That's sort of the cold war mindset that existed. I mean, is there a way that that doesn't play out? Do you see that these guarantees could lead to just a conventional war? Because I think that's the big concern. Well, on the whole, um, we have not had a nuclear war. We have not had nuclear war because of a reality. It's called MAD, mutual assured destruction. The fact is that if the United States picked up Russian missiles coming at the United States, they would within minutes retaliate with a massive strike. So there should have been a war between the United States and Russia. It never happened because of nuclear weapons. in a strange pacifist way, it imposed a certain limit. At the same time, if the Europeans say, well, there's a risk of nuclear war, therefore we will not build our forces and go into Ukraine, then the appeasement is the European appeasement that they will take that risk. The Americans have been in that state for a long time, and so we're more used to it. But I doubt very much that a nuclear war would come out of this because one of the first people to die in that war would be Putin. The leaders would be the first struck. And it just it didn't happen because it was not only irrational but devastating to the people who called for the war. Let's look at kind of this perspective coming from the White House. Um, George, of course, you've said many times that Russia hasn't won the war in the way it would have wanted to. Interestingly, here where I am in London today, the former head of MI6 was talking and he basically made the point that he thinks Steve Wickoff, the the US negotiator in Russia seems to think that Russia is winning. And now this former head of MI6 agreed with you there, George, actually that he thinks that they're not. for example used was the battle of Pogsk where Russia has suffered about 100,000 casualties just in that battle alone. I suppose the question I have for you on that is is what happens if let's say the White House or anyone else doesn't view the reality that's in front of them. They they don't see the fact that Russia is losing, and that Wickoff has convinced the White House that Russia is actually winning. I don't think that anybody thinks the Russians are winning. They have captured after 3 and 1/2 years a small segment of Ukraine. They're desperately trying in these negotiations to get just a bit more. So when you you look at that, this is not a nation that's triumphant. This is a nation that we expected in the first days of the war being marching in in Kiev, taking it and so on. It did that in Crimea, for example. So no one claim it won the war it wanted to win. At the same time it has been definitively defeated. So the point is this war can drag on as for example the Vietnam war dragged on for many years with many casualties with the United States making no progress. Okay. Or there can be a peace settlement. So, I'll make a joke. Not properly meant, but the Europeans are prepared to fight the last American is one way that the Americans put it. And in this particular case, the reality is the Russians did not succeed and therefore fear. That's a failure. The Ukrainians cannot drive them out of the land they're in. This war can continue with with battles being fought with drones being delivered to each side or an understanding made on each side. There has to be concessions and on each side there has to be guarantees. And so when you take a look at whether they won or lost, they certainly given their war plans did not succeed. They were not utterly defeated by the Ukrainians at the same time. Now there's a strong sense in Europe uh and some people might not like this but there's a strong sense that this proposal from the US that the way things are going is effectively a stab in the back is a betrayal of Ukraine. Um I mean in that sense and of course whether or not that is right or wrong there's that sense. Does the US risk serious degradation of its reputation as a result of this as an ally? Well, it has a choice. The degradation of the reputation in the face of Europeans are going to war with many casualties on the American side. But I will say to the Europeans who feel this way that stab in the back, pick up your sword and fight. Do it yourself. show that you are moral. Somehow the Europeans judge the Americans by higher standards than they judge themselves. So in all cases, the question here is, is it worth it on all sides for war to die in this war in order to save face? I don't think Trump's face is particularly embarrassed by doing this. But then if the Europeans feel that it is, they are certainly free to send troops immediately to the Ukraine and engage the Russians and be prepared for a multi-year war. So I would say it's a rational step. Stabbing back. Well, we saved to some extent Europeans and Americans together the Ukrainians. They probably would have lost the war if we hadn't come in. We did not give many lives of our own forces. But if the Europeans feel that their honor requires going to war, this is not how the Americans feel. But the Europeans should feel free at any point to do it. Do you think if if Ukraine uh decided to reject this deal and say, "No, we we can't accept this. We're going to keep fighting. We're going to have to do it without American help." Do you think the Europeans can and would be able to continue supporting it so that it could? 3 XXXXXXXXXX Well, let's look at reality. The Russians held this amount of land 3 years ago. They've not been able to advance, but they held that land and the Ukrainians have not been able to push them out. So in other words, this war has been in a static state for a very long time with relatively small movements in either direction, regaining territory, losing it. Russians clearly cannot take the entire country. The Ukrainians can't force the Russians out. If they want to go on in trying to do this, I think both sides understand that somehow tomorrow will not be better than yesterday. So all those people who argue that we have given too much to Russia should be prepared to take arms and go forward. The Americans are not. Does this mean a betrayal? Well, we're very sensitive to how the French feel about us, and we certainly worry about that a great deal, but that's not really a driving force in the United States. So whether our reputation with the Europeans goes down, the European reputation with the United States is not that high. looking at the kind of broader geopolitical map here as well and we're going to talk about China in just a moment but from the perspective of Russia in the broader geopolitical map one of the things that this will bring about if the deal is followed is the reintegration of Russia into the world economy and particularly Russia's reintegration into the G7 which would return to being the G8 of the world's largest economies h how important is that for Russia. Well, at this point, Russia is the ninth largest economy in the world. So, they've kind of slipped. But the most important point is this. One of the things that Trump held out to the Russians from the beginning was reach a peace settlement. We have no other issues with Russia. We will be happy to engage in economic relations, investments in Russia. Russia is an interesting place to invest. It has vast lands, a sophisticated workforce, cheap relative to the world system and all sorts of resources. So the this has been held out to the Russians. The Russians for to continue the war. When Trump came in, he did offer this. They continued the war. They failed to achieve very much by continuing the war. This would certainly be an opportunity for the Russians to get out of the position that they've been in as an isolated economy fighting a war with scarce resources and evolved tremendously in the same way that China evolved from its access to the American market, its exports and with American investment which was substantial. There's no reason Russian can do that. But the Russians have to make a fundamental agreement with themselves. Now we are Russia. The Soviet Union collapsed. The western part went off. So did Central Asia went off. So the South Caucuses go off. This is what Russia is now. And we will live with that because having economic relations with a country that we're also hostile to war with is impossible. And therefore, and that's true for Europe as well, the Europeans feel the same way on that score. So for Russia, it's a major boom boom. If they could do it, they could recover after years of war. An economy that is much more stressed than people understand. H well the wider game here as well of course is the issue with China which is that the US may it seems at some point soon reach a renegotiated renegotiated settlement of some variety with China in accord of living together I suppose and that means a lot to Russia but there's another dimension of this to the United States the worst nightmare for Russia is a US Chinese understanding economic and military which as we've spoken of in the past seems to be emerging slowly For the Chinese the worst nightmare is a US-Russian understanding which the Russians have fought wars even during communism battles with the Chinese they're not friends really or there can be a threeon between the three major powers of the world Russia Russia, China and the United States forming an economic community that would be dominant in the world and so on. So there is an incentive for the Russians to make a peace with the United States involved before the Chinese do. There's a reason for the Chinese to make more peace before the Russians do. And I think this is one of the dimensions of American strategy that we want to distance ourselves from the Eastern Hemisphere and its endless wars but have a more limited but profound economic tie. We've always looked at this as being Europe. Well, Europe is not necessarily the most dynamic place in the world. When we look at China, that's a much more interesting economic relationship for the United States both in imports and exports. When we look at Russia, we look at China 20 years ago when we started investing in China. Therefore, when you look at the entire picture, this is not only about Ukraine. This is about the understanding between the three major powers that pretty pretty much dominate the world. Well then, George, uh, we are geopolitical futures. Geopolitical futures does forecasting. Where might all of this be in a year, do you think at the end of 2026? Well, first of all, the war ends with Russia getting what it wanted, a buffer zone. Buffer zone that is neutralized. Ukraine comes out of this as neutral buffer. If the Russians move to attack, there's plenty of warning to be given as they cross the borders and plenty of time, long distance to intervene by the Americans, by the Europeans, particularly by the Poles. It's not a bad thing to be a buffer zone. Switzerland was created as a buffer zone between nations. There was no wars, but there was plenty of trade going over Switzerland as well as a lot of banking. Being a nucle being a neutral power in this case for Ukraine is a promising evolution for the United States. It allows us to even further move away from the eastern hemisphere and have much more interest in ma in pacifying the western hemisphere which is something we're doing right now. At the same time we have the possibility of having the similar China. The Trump idea was basically to pull ourselves out of the eastern hemisphere of the constant involvement to create a new economic relationship with the regions. And over the next four or five years, this is I think what is going to happen. The United States does not want to be involved in eastern hemispheric wars. It does not want to be consciously connected economically with China while a possible state of war is on the other side. It wants an understanding and frankly it doesn't want to see Russia becoming a hegemon in the region but it has no problem seeing Russia becoming a major economic power and so on. So I see a neutralized Ukraine that might do very well in these circumstances. I see an understanding both between the United States and Russia and China as well. Creating a new Breton Woods agreement in the way a new trading system and so on. And by no means are we entering a world of peace and love. The normal tensions will go on everywhere. But this is, I think, an element in the process that not just Trump wanted, but the United States wanted. We fought in Afghanistan. We fought in Ukraine. We fought in Vietnam. We fought South Korea. Endless wars leading to nothing but casualties. We did an economic system that was relevant in 1945, but 80 years later, it's quite a different world. So what would be engineering now is not Trump's doing. Trump is responding to the realities of history. And I think any president, perhaps not the same style, any president would be trying to disengage from Europe, from the Eastern Hemisphere. And this is where Europe becomes important. This is where Europe can either be victim again or one of the great forces, the third, fourth great force. If Europe can possibly create a United States of Europe with one government and the various nations of the European, nor the European plane or the rest of Europe being provinces, they are a major power in the world. If they continue to distrust each other as they've done for centuries, made war on each other, then they're victims. Then the Russians, the Americans, and the Chinese together will be the governing force. So what grows out of this for me is I think I can see what happens in Ukraine. I think I can see what America is trying to do and likely will do with the Russians and the Chinese. And the big mystery of the world becomes Europe itself. What does Europe evolve as? We know at this point that they they have the European Union and it functions to some limited extent. But you cannot have on the one side NATO a military force. On the other side having nothing to do with it, the European Union economy and military capability go together. The security and well-being is based on both and therefore the Europeans have to make it and I cannot predict that they will there's nothing indicating inside of Poland a trust for Germany, inside of Germany a trust for France, inside of France I just don't see that happening so one of the important things is a vastly important economic portion of the world, Europe, continuing in this fragmented form without any joint military power is looking for very bad time if as I say we reach an understanding not friendship love understanding with Russia and China and the United States so that's the next question and that's the question that's the least transparent least easy to understand so that's what I really see here is that out of this I think comes an understanding with China not a love affair an understanding with Russia not a love affair and then the question is if the US backs out of an understanding with Europe what does Europe do and that's the part that I'm interested in let me ask you one last question linked to that I suppose looking back at Russia do you think and this perhaps will be an important question for Europe in the future. Do you think that Putin has ambitions and perhaps more accurately ambitions that he wants to put into practice uh in terms of other former Soviet states? So the Baltic states? Well, I'm not I'm not really big on personalities. Putin can have a heart attack tomorrow. It will still be Russia. Think of it as nations. Same thing can be said for Trump, some all of these leaders. Gee, okay, take a look what these nations need. Russia, the Soviet Union collapsed. Not only in terms of Europe, but also in terms of the South Caucuses, which are now in American, not hands, but pro-American also with Central Asia, Kazak, Kazakhstan, these countries are now emerging. So it has enemies potentially not there yet to their west in Europe to their east in central Asia and China and to their south in the caucuses. This is supposedly a very difficult position and that's a position Russia has not been in since long before the tarist took over. So one of the things that they have to do is reach an accommodation with these areas around them which no one really minds but the idea that these countries these regions will be under Moscow's control is not going to be there. So Russia has a great deal to do. The first effort it made to create this buffer around itself was in Ukraine. They did very badly. They're going to have to reconsider what they can do because before you go to war, you have to be confident that you could win. Japan went to war confidently win against the United States. Bad mistake in Hiroshima. Okay. So, Russia now has to go through an existential crisis. What is Russia? Is it a very large potentially prosperous country or is it a great regional imperial power and Russia has been both at the same time but never both prosperous and powerful. So Russia that's a real question not what the Americans are going to do even to some extent know what the Europeans would do that's very important. How does Russia evolve? It's lost the regions that were critical to it. It has a potentially hostile neighbor in China and the US that wants to go home and have fun, keep away from it. How does Russia evolve? So, how does Europe evolve? How does China evolve? This is a moment in history where all the things that we took for granted for the past 80 years really falls apart. In a certain sense, this is the end of the Cold War. So where the world didn't change dramatically and Russia didn't change dramatically at the end of the Cold War, this is where the United States is ending the Cold War by pulling back by no longer needing to be looked at as a trusting ally for anything anyone does responsible. And when the question that you asked was will this reduce the American prestige in the world? we are tired of worrying about how the world thinks about us. So in many ways there's an evolution going on in the United States, a very unruly one and a similar revolution take place in the world. This first act told us what Russia is. There are many more acts to be followed. But I think we've entered into the transitional state where the Cold War is no longer a relevant model, but a very different model has emerged. Why does George Friedman say Russia fail to achieve its initial aims, especially regarding its attempt to take Kiev, and what does this reveal about the limits of its military strategy? strategic overreach = situation where a country attempts more military tasks than its resources or planning allow Why can't either Russia or Ukraine win? defensive advantage = condition where defending side require fewer resources than attacking side to hold territory Why do wars without clear winners usually end in negotiation or freezing? What long-term risks do frozen wars carry? frozen conflict = unresolved war with halted fighting but no lasting agreement Why does George Friedman emphasise how little territory Russia gain after years of fighting, and how does this support his wider argument about the war’s cost? cost–benefit imbalance = situation where effort or expense far exceed resulting gains Why would continuing the war without negotiation require Western troop deployment? Why is this unrealistic and dangerous? escalation risk = likelihood that limited conflict expand into larger or more dangerous confrontation Was Trump's 28-point peace plan unfair? Why is such proposed pressure necessary to bring Russia to negotiation? strategic leverage = advantage created to influence another side’s decisions in negotiation Why does George Friedman reject the idea that air strikes alone could force Russia to yield, and how does he use history to support this point? coercive bombing = attempt to force political change through aerial attack alone What do Russia’s wartime history and economic resilience suggest about its capacity to endure hardship? economic resilience = ability of an economy to absorb shocks and continue functioning How does George Friedman describe the war’s outcome as both a disaster for Russia and a success for Ukraine? What logic does he use to support this dual assessment? strategic outcome = overall result of a conflict measured against original objectives Why isn't the issue whether Russia double-crosses the West as much as whether Western allies allow Russia to do so? How does this shift responsibility? enforcement capacity = ability of actors to monitor and act when agreements violated to double-cross = to cheat or deceive sb who trusts you (usually in connection with sth illegal or dishonest) Why does George Friedman frame Europe’s response as an existential test? What does this reveal about expectations for European unity and defence responsibility? collective resolve = shared determination among several countries to act together under pressure How could a neutral Ukraine benefit all sides? Why would such a shift be part of a larger transformation in global power relations? buffer state = country positioned between major powers that reduce direct conflict risk Why would Donald Trump aim to pull the United States out of the eastern hemisphere? What strategic shift does this represent? strategic retrenchment = reduction of international commitments to conserve resources and avoid overextension Why does George Friedman argue that withdrawing from the eastern hemisphere requires allies to assume more responsibility? How does this alter existing defence arrangements? security gap = space where reduced external protection require others to take over defence roles Are there hints of broader American fatigue with long-term conflicts? How does this sentiment influence American policy? intervention fatigue = public exhaustion after many years of military involvement abroad What economic reasoning explains why the United States wants to reduce its involvement in distant regions like the eastern hemisphere? fiscal position = condition of government finances including spending and debt How does George Friedman describe the geopolitical consequences if the United States scale back its role in the eastern hemisphere, especially for Europe and Asia? power vacuum = situation where withdrawal of a dominant power leave space for others to expand influence Why is the Trump peace plan possibly the beginning of a wider global shift? How does it connect to the end of the post Cold War order? geopolitical realignment = major change in how states organise alliances and strategic priorities How does George Friedman explain that the collapse of the Soviet Union reshapes the strategic landscape of Eurasia, and why does he say this transformation still influences current conflicts Why does George Friedman argue that the Soviet collapse leaves Russia with deep strategic insecurity, and how does he say this insecurity shapes Russia's actions today? buffer zone = area between a state and potential rivals used to increase security How does George Friedman describe the economic consequences of the Soviet collapse for Russia, and why does he see these consequences as central to its modern strategic decisions? economic shock = rapid and disruptive change to a country’s financial system How come the Soviet collapse created new nations unprepared for independence? How did this shape regional instability? What political vacuum emerged after the Soviet collapse? Why would outside powers quickly move to fill this space? How does the collapse of the Soviet Union lead to later geopolitical confrontations? Why does misunderstanding this link lead to strategic errors? post-collapse settlement = political and territorial arrangements formed after a state breaks apart 126 strategic overreach = situation where a country attempts more military tasks than its resources or planning allow defensive advantage = condition where defending side require fewer resources than attacking side to hold territory frozen conflict = unresolved war with halted fighting but no lasting agreement cost–benefit imbalance = situation where effort or expense far exceed resulting gains escalation risk = likelihood that limited conflict expand into larger or more dangerous confrontation strategic leverage = advantage created to influence another side’s decisions in negotiation coercive bombing = attempt to force political change through aerial attack alone economic resilience = ability of an economy to absorb shocks and continue functioning strategic outcome = overall result of a conflict measured against original objectives enforcement capacity = ability of actors to monitor and act when agreements violated to double-cross = to cheat or deceive sb who trusts you (usually in connection with sth illegal or dishonest) collective resolve = shared determination among several countries to act together under pressure buffer state = country positioned between major powers that reduce direct conflict risk strategic retrenchment = reduction of international commitments to conserve resources and avoid overextension security gap = space where reduced external protection require others to take over defence roles intervention fatigue = public exhaustion after many years of military involvement abroad fiscal position = condition of government finances including spending and debt power vacuum = situation where withdrawal of a dominant power leave space for others to expand influence geopolitical realignment = major change in how states organise alliances and strategic priorities buffer zone = area between a state and potential rivals used to increase security economic shock = rapid and disruptive change to a country’s financial system post-collapse settlement = political and territorial arrangements formed after a state breaks apart 125 20251210 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? (2/3) By the end of this session you will have studied George Friedman on the Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? If the peace proposal currently under negotiation to end the war in Ukraine feels like déjà vu, you're not alone. Throughout the year, hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough have repeatedly surged and faded. But with the surprising terms of the latest proposal now on the table—and U.S. President Donald Trump hinting that this may be a "now or never" moment—the world is asking whether a real path to peace finally exists. Is the deal workable? How are Europe's leaders responding? And what fundamentals of the war risk being overlooked amid the political noise? Joining host Christian Smith to break down the proposal, assess the geopolitical dynamics shaping the negotiations, and explore the evolving economic relationship between the US and Russia and China is GPF Chairman George Friedman 20251126 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0qvJfstDNw → watch the video → answer the questions zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 124 1 Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-movie-100_white.png Isn't the war in Ukraine a sign of Russia's existential quest for a new identity? Perhaps involving isolating itself technologically & ideologically, to some extent like China? George Friedman on the Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? If the peace proposal currently under negotiation to end the war in Ukraine feels like déjà vu, you're not alone. Throughout the year, hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough have repeatedly surged and faded. But with the surprising terms of the latest proposal now on the table—and U.S. President Donald Trump hinting that this may be a "now or never" moment—the world is asking whether a real path to peace finally exists. Is the deal workable? How are Europe's leaders responding? And what fundamentals of the war risk being overlooked amid the political noise? Joining host Christian Smith to break down the proposal, assess the geopolitical dynamics shaping the negotiations, and explore the evolving economic relationship between the US and Russia and China is GPF Chairman George Friedman 20251126 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0qvJfstDNw → watch the video → answer the questions]]> If the peace proposal currently being negotiated to bring the war in Ukraine to an end feels a bit like deja vu to you, you're not the only one. The sense that peace might be close has come and gone several times this year. But although the initial terms of the deal came as a shock to many, US President Donald Trump is implying that it could be a now or never moment. So is the deal workable? Is it a stitchup? Or is it just plain and simple real politique? [Music] Well, here to discuss the proposal and to remind us of the fundamentals in this war is geopolitical futures chairman and founder George Freriedman. George, welcome. Now, we should say that things are moving fairly quickly and on Monday when we are recording this uh there were meetings happening in Geneva where Marco Rubio was there and there were a number of changes it seems to the plan. It may be more of a 19point plan than a 28-point plan. Things are moving uh fairly rapidly as we say, so just keep that in mind. But George, to start off with, let's let's stick with the fundamentals. I suppose we've covered this war a number of times on this podcast this year. Um remind us of how you see the current situation in Ukraine. 1 Well, there two things. First, Russia has failed to achieve its objectives in this war. His objective was to conquer Ukraine. That's visible by how they attacked it. They didn't just attack the eastern part that's now into question. They also attacked down the center of the country and toward Kiev, the capital. If all of these had succeeded, Ukraine would have been in the hands of Russia. The attack on Kiev failed. So did the central attack. Only one really worked out, the eastern. So we look at the original Russian intentions. They failed pretty badly. For over 3 years, they have fought and this is all they've gotten. 2 On the Ukrainian side, at the same time, there's no way they're going to be able to drive the Russians out of the land they can't occupy. The Ukrainian army is smaller. its ability to take casualties less and is much harder to carry out an attack than a defense. So in effect, neither side has won this war. And when there is no victor in the war, what always happens is a negotiated settlement or some frozen war. A frozen war is dangerous because it could reerupt at any point. And therefore, a negotiated settlement is the most reasonable outcome. And that's what being on here to find a common ground that both the Ukrainians and the Russians could live with. And look, looking at this plan right now, could this be the negotiated settlement that works, do you think? I mean, just give us a broad overview of what you make of the plan. Well, it basically doesn't make Ukraine happy and it doesn't make Russia happy. Therefore, on the whole, it should be successful. It is impossible to make both sides happy. Russia has to agree that after three and a half years, all that is caught is a relatively small part of Ukraine, the area of Luhansk and Donetsk. In to incentivize them, they're being gi. But on the other hand, they will not be permitted to put troops in Donetsk. It will be formally part of Russia but not under the military control of Russia. So that's a very important thing to understand which is how little the Russians gained from this war. How many men fell in this war women too I suppose. And that in fact they failed. On the other side, there is the fact that the Ukrainians simply don't have their own power to drive the Russians back. It's very it's much easier to defend than to attack. As I said, the option of continuing the war is that the Americans and the Europeans send troops into the Ukraine, engage the Russians, defeat them, and try to avoid a nuclear if response from the Russians. Okay? So when you look at this, all the people who say this is really unfair. Well, this is going to be what brings Russia to the table and to sign. And if they're not willing to do that, there is another option. Let's go to war. Let's land troops. Now, since none of the European countries want that, nor are they really capable of fighting the war, the other alternative is the Americans should engage in the war. From our point of view, we've engaged in so many wars since World War II, most of them ending badly, that we have no appetite for a war in Ukraine. Therefore, there is no possible solution without some concessions to the Russians that they wouldn't have had if they hadn't attacked, which is if you feel that shouldn't be rewarded, prepare to enlist. If you feel that better the war should end on these terms, well, that's another thing. There are details of it that have to be worked out of course and other dimensions of it but I see no other way to end this war but a negotiation and a negotiation in which neither side will be happy. Let's look at the Oh, I want to look at the Russian perspective in just a couple of minutes but let's just pick up on a couple of things you said there George. I mean, so as you say, it it's basically not going to happen that Western countries will be sending their troops in and to fight their war. Apart from anything else, there's the risk, as you say, of nuclear war stemming out of a direct confrontation. But many argue either A that better military support for Ukraine would change the game and mean that Ukraine can actually win or B and perhaps a combination of A and B that Russian that that pressure on the Russian economy, there's pressure on Russian oil hitting um inside Russia with long-range missiles is making a difference and that will eventually lead to Russia folding and giving up. Do do you give any credence to that point of view? Well, I don't know exactly what kind of weapons we would introduce that would induce the Russians or force the Russians to concede. In other words, uh we've done a pretty good job arming the Ukrainians. But in the end, in occupying territory is the poor bloody infantry that has to do it. The ground has to be taken even if you use missiles and so on and so forth. And it should also be remembered while the Russians tried to attack Kiev with missiles, the Ukrainians were not forced to concede. In the history of warfare, air strikes such as on London by the Germans or on Hamburg by the Americans did not force them to give up. We bombed Hanoi continually. They did not give up. The idea therefore that if we used deep air strikes on Russian targets they would give up. Well, that's not what the Ukrainians did. What they did was fought harder. So the idea that we could have a bloodless intervention where no Western lives, no American lives, no European lives are put at stake is just a fantasy. The Ukrainians have fought as well as they could. They fought better than anybody thought they would. Nevertheless, they have much smaller force than the Russians. The Russians badly. And what about the economic side of things where, you know, there's there's an idea, there's an argument from some quarters that Russia's just a year or two away from some form of collapse. That means they can't continue the war. Well, it's an amazing thing. World War II, many countries had their economies wrecked, particularly the Russian economy. They still fought the war. The choice between poverty and foreign domination is on the table and historically foreign domination is the one that people dislike the most. Particularly the Russians have a strange ability to fight in term in a context of economic collapse. That's how they fought World War II. Now will they fight it again in the same way with the same passion? I don't know. But neither did I people claiming that. So certainly the economic pressures are one of the things that stopped the Russian offensive in Ukraine in the sense they could marshall the force and could not if they went too deep survive that. But at the same time there are limits to economic pressure. There are also incentives in economic possibilities. So if the intention here is to end a war that neither side can win and could go on for a very long time is going on far longer than anybody thought it would particularly the Russians because they thought they'd win rapidly. Surprised the Ukrainians that it did so well I think and certainly no one 3 years ago would have thought that this war would still be waging in the fourth war, fourth year. And therefore the ideas that there are other options than a set of negotiated peace is is very hard to fathom. So and in a negotiated peace of this sort neither side will be happy. It's certainly giving an interesting there's interesting conclusions to be drawn on the effects of economic sanctions and that sort of thing. It's interesting to be interesting to see what happens with the sanctions on oil as well if this continues. But looking from the perspective of Russia now, I mean, as we've talked about before, Putin Putin in many ways needs an exit from this. That means he can save face. That means he can sort of sell to his the people inside the Kremlin and the country at a whole that this hasn't been a total disaster. Does this exit give Putin what he needs to do that? Well, the war hasn't been a total disaster, but it's mostly been a disaster. In other words, again to look at it correctly, they attacked to take Kiev. They entered Kiev and were driven back. They attacked from the south from Crimea. That was blocked to. So when you look at this, on the whole, this war was not lost by the Russians, but nevertheless a defeat for Russia. This was not the Russia that when I was younger and standing to fill the gap expected the Russians to be like. It was a failure for the Russians. It was a success for the Ukrainians because they survived. That alone makes them the winners of this war. So in my point of view, it may save a little face for Putin. But in fact this sort of settlement he could have had years ago without what now is million Russian casualties. So I mean the main concern for many uh many in the west and in Ukraine of course is this the idea that this is effectively some form of 1938 Munich Munich agreement an appeasement deal. And if if the deal goes ahead, all Putin will do is take over the more advantageous positions in defence, rebuild his forces and attack from a more powerful position in a couple of years time. I mean, do you think that that concern is legitimate that that could really happen? Oh, it could really happen, but the fault would rest with Europe and the United States. Part of this agreement, article 5, is that the United States and Europe in the event that the Russians renewed the attack would guarantee Ukrainian security that is intervene. So if the Europeans remain as feckless as you will in terms of rapidly evol re revolutionizing their military and if Trump is lying about what he's saying here which have cost him tremendously in the United States. Uh the question here is not Russian treachery which they're certainly treacherous. It is the question of whether or not Europe and the United States will live up to this promise. I think the United States will live up to it because we have the force to do so and also tend to respond to double crosses that way. Will the Europeans build up their military so they can keep that end of the bargain as well? Therefore, the question is not whether or not he will double cross us. It is whether we will let him be able to double cross us. And because he can't attack next time and lose this badly, assuming that he survives this fundamental defeat, it has to be understood that this is not in any way like the Munich deal. This is a recognition by the Russians that they lost the war by not winning it the way they wanted to and came out with this little. So I don't see really this as in any way appeasement of the Russians. It's simply a recognition of reality and the question of whether Russia attacks or not is really up to the United States and especially the Europeans. Well, and on that I mean I think there's a very interesting moment coming here particularly for Europe in terms of the type of security guarantee it gives to Ukraine because as we've talked about before and as people know very well you know Europe has been slow off the mark to put it mildly in many respects here. So that will be really interesting to see what they're willing to do. Well I always wonder about the Europeans. Obviously, one of the things they love to do is condemn Trump for offering this appeasement. On the other hand, there been in the past fairly slow in mobilizing their own capabilities. So, oddly enough, this is if unless they are prepared to enter the war at this time and res the Russians, the possibility the Russians might do a little better. But if they actually want peace, then they have to prepare for war. And so this is really a test of what Europe is. Is Europe anything more than a continent name? Is it a united entity? And does it have the will to stand guard in the gates? And this is from my point of view an existential moment for the Europeans. Their choice is either to end the war or to pursue it. If the decision is we should not in any way make concessions to the Russians to end this war because that's appeasement, fine, send your troops in. But Ukrainians by themselves cannot defeat the Russians, nor can they push them out of this area. So while it may be that this appears to be appeasement, it's appeasement only if both sides don't live up to the agreements. And one of the agreements is a fundamental one that the United States and the Europeans guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty. This is perhaps a bit we're going down a bit of a path here, but this perhaps a cold war mindset from me, I suppose. But when I hear the idea of a European Russian confrontation or Western Russian confrontation, I think nuclear war. That's sort of the cold war mindset that existed. I mean, is there a way that that doesn't play out? Do you see that these guarantees could lead to just a conventional war? Because I think that's the big concern. Well, on the whole, um, we have not had a nuclear war. We have not had nuclear war because of a reality. It's called MAD, mutual assured destruction. The fact is that if the United States picked up Russian missiles coming at the United States, they would within minutes retaliate with a massive strike. So there should have been a war between the United States and Russia. It never happened because of nuclear weapons. in a strange pacifist way, it imposed a certain limit. At the same time, if the Europeans say, well, there's a risk of nuclear war, therefore we will not build our forces and go into Ukraine, then the appeasement is the European appeasement that they will take that risk. The Americans have been in that state for a long time, and so we're more used to it. But I doubt very much that a nuclear war would come out of this because one of the first people to die in that war would be Putin. The leaders would be the first struck. And it just it didn't happen because it was not only irrational but devastating to the people who called for the war. Let's look at kind of this perspective coming from the White House. Um, George, of course, you've said many times that Russia hasn't won the war in the way it would have wanted to. Interestingly, here where I am in London today, the former head of MI6 was talking and he basically made the point that he thinks Steve Wickoff, the the US negotiator in Russia seems to think that Russia is winning. And now this former head of MI6 agreed with you there, George, actually that he thinks that they're not. for example used was the battle of Pogsk where Russia has suffered about 100,000 casualties just in that battle alone. I suppose the question I have for you on that is is what happens if let's say the White House or anyone else doesn't view the reality that's in front of them. They they don't see the fact that Russia is losing, and that Wickoff has convinced the White House that Russia is actually winning. I don't think that anybody thinks the Russians are winning. They have captured after 3 and 1/2 years a small segment of Ukraine. They're desperately trying in these negotiations to get just a bit more. So when you you look at that, this is not a nation that's triumphant. This is a nation that we expected in the first days of the war being marching in in Kiev, taking it and so on. It did that in Crimea, for example. So no one claim it won the war it wanted to win. At the same time it has been definitively defeated. So the point is this war can drag on as for example the Vietnam war dragged on for many years with many casualties with the United States making no progress. Okay. Or there can be a peace settlement. So, I'll make a joke. Not properly meant, but the Europeans are prepared to fight the last American is one way that the Americans put it. And in this particular case, the reality is the Russians did not succeed and therefore fear. That's a failure. The Ukrainians cannot drive them out of the land they're in. This war can continue with with battles being fought with drones being delivered to each side or an understanding made on each side. There has to be concessions and on each side there has to be guarantees. And so when you take a look at whether they won or lost, they certainly given their war plans did not succeed. They were not utterly defeated by the Ukrainians at the same time. Now there's a strong sense in Europe uh and some people might not like this but there's a strong sense that this proposal from the US that the way things are going is effectively a stab in the back is a betrayal of Ukraine. Um I mean in that sense and of course whether or not that is right or wrong there's that sense. Does the US risk serious degradation of its reputation as a result of this as an ally? Well, it has a choice. The degradation of the reputation in the face of Europeans are going to war with many casualties on the American side. But I will say to the Europeans who feel this way that stab in the back, pick up your sword and fight. Do it yourself. show that you are moral. Somehow the Europeans judge the Americans by higher standards than they judge themselves. So in all cases, the question here is, is it worth it on all sides for war to die in this war in order to save face? I don't think Trump's face is particularly embarrassed by doing this. But then if the Europeans feel that it is, they are certainly free to send troops immediately to the Ukraine and engage the Russians and be prepared for a multi-year war. So I would say it's a rational step. Stabbing back. Well, we saved to some extent Europeans and Americans together the Ukrainians. They probably would have lost the war if we hadn't come in. We did not give many lives of our own forces. But if the Europeans feel that their honor requires going to war, this is not how the Americans feel. But the Europeans should feel free at any point to do it. Do you think if if Ukraine uh decided to reject this deal and say, "No, we we can't accept this. We're going to keep fighting. We're going to have to do it without American help." Do you think the Europeans can and would be able to continue supporting it so that it could? 3 XXXXXXXXXX Well, let's look at reality. The Russians held this amount of land 3 years ago. They've not been able to advance, but they held that land and the Ukrainians have not been able to push them out. So in other words, this war has been in a static state for a very long time with relatively small movements in either direction, regaining territory, losing it. Russians clearly cannot take the entire country. The Ukrainians can't force the Russians out. If they want to go on in trying to do this, I think both sides understand that somehow tomorrow will not be better than yesterday. So all those people who argue that we have given too much to Russia should be prepared to take arms and go forward. The Americans are not. Does this mean a betrayal? Well, we're very sensitive to how the French feel about us, and we certainly worry about that a great deal, but that's not really a driving force in the United States. So whether our reputation with the Europeans goes down, the European reputation with the United States is not that high. looking at the kind of broader geopolitical map here as well and we're going to talk about China in just a moment but from the perspective of Russia in the broader geopolitical map one of the things that this will bring about if the deal is followed is the reintegration of Russia into the world economy and particularly Russia's reintegration into the G7 which would return to being the G8 of the world's largest economies h how important is that for Russia. Well, at this point, Russia is the ninth largest economy in the world. So, they've kind of slipped. But the most important point is this. One of the things that Trump held out to the Russians from the beginning was reach a peace settlement. We have no other issues with Russia. We will be happy to engage in economic relations, investments in Russia. Russia is an interesting place to invest. It has vast lands, a sophisticated workforce, cheap relative to the world system and all sorts of resources. So the this has been held out to the Russians. The Russians for to continue the war. When Trump came in, he did offer this. They continued the war. They failed to achieve very much by continuing the war. This would certainly be an opportunity for the Russians to get out of the position that they've been in as an isolated economy fighting a war with scarce resources and evolved tremendously in the same way that China evolved from its access to the American market, its exports and with American investment which was substantial. There's no reason Russian can do that. But the Russians have to make a fundamental agreement with themselves. Now we are Russia. The Soviet Union collapsed. The western part went off. So did Central Asia went off. So the South Caucuses go off. This is what Russia is now. And we will live with that because having economic relations with a country that we're also hostile to war with is impossible. And therefore, and that's true for Europe as well, the Europeans feel the same way on that score. So for Russia, it's a major boom boom. If they could do it, they could recover after years of war. An economy that is much more stressed than people understand. H well the wider game here as well of course is the issue with China which is that the US may it seems at some point soon reach a renegotiated renegotiated settlement of some variety with China in accord of living together I suppose and that means a lot to Russia but there's another dimension of this to the United States the worst nightmare for Russia is a US Chinese understanding economic and military which as we've spoken of in the past seems to be emerging slowly For the Chinese the worst nightmare is a US-Russian understanding which the Russians have fought wars even during communism battles with the Chinese they're not friends really or there can be a threeon between the three major powers of the world Russia Russia, China and the United States forming an economic community that would be dominant in the world and so on. So there is an incentive for the Russians to make a peace with the United States involved before the Chinese do. There's a reason for the Chinese to make more peace before the Russians do. And I think this is one of the dimensions of American strategy that we want to distance ourselves from the Eastern Hemisphere and its endless wars but have a more limited but profound economic tie. We've always looked at this as being Europe. Well, Europe is not necessarily the most dynamic place in the world. When we look at China, that's a much more interesting economic relationship for the United States both in imports and exports. When we look at Russia, we look at China 20 years ago when we started investing in China. Therefore, when you look at the entire picture, this is not only about Ukraine. This is about the understanding between the three major powers that pretty pretty much dominate the world. Well then, George, uh, we are geopolitical futures. Geopolitical futures does forecasting. Where might all of this be in a year, do you think at the end of 2026? Well, first of all, the war ends with Russia getting what it wanted, a buffer zone. Buffer zone that is neutralized. Ukraine comes out of this as neutral buffer. If the Russians move to attack, there's plenty of warning to be given as they cross the borders and plenty of time, long distance to intervene by the Americans, by the Europeans, particularly by the Poles. It's not a bad thing to be a buffer zone. Switzerland was created as a buffer zone between nations. There was no wars, but there was plenty of trade going over Switzerland as well as a lot of banking. Being a nucle being a neutral power in this case for Ukraine is a promising evolution for the United States. It allows us to even further move away from the eastern hemisphere and have much more interest in ma in pacifying the western hemisphere which is something we're doing right now. At the same time we have the possibility of having the similar China. The Trump idea was basically to pull ourselves out of the eastern hemisphere of the constant involvement to create a new economic relationship with the regions. And over the next four or five years, this is I think what is going to happen. The United States does not want to be involved in eastern hemispheric wars. It does not want to be consciously connected economically with China while a possible state of war is on the other side. It wants an understanding and frankly it doesn't want to see Russia becoming a hegemon in the region but it has no problem seeing Russia becoming a major economic power and so on. So I see a neutralized Ukraine that might do very well in these circumstances. I see an understanding both between the United States and Russia and China as well. Creating a new Breton Woods agreement in the way a new trading system and so on. And by no means are we entering a world of peace and love. The normal tensions will go on everywhere. But this is, I think, an element in the process that not just Trump wanted, but the United States wanted. We fought in Afghanistan. We fought in Ukraine. We fought in Vietnam. We fought South Korea. Endless wars leading to nothing but casualties. We did an economic system that was relevant in 1945, but 80 years later, it's quite a different world. So what would be engineering now is not Trump's doing. Trump is responding to the realities of history. And I think any president, perhaps not the same style, any president would be trying to disengage from Europe, from the Eastern Hemisphere. And this is where Europe becomes important. This is where Europe can either be victim again or one of the great forces, the third, fourth great force. If Europe can possibly create a United States of Europe with one government and the various nations of the European, nor the European plane or the rest of Europe being provinces, they are a major power in the world. If they continue to distrust each other as they've done for centuries, made war on each other, then they're victims. Then the Russians, the Americans, and the Chinese together will be the governing force. So what grows out of this for me is I think I can see what happens in Ukraine. I think I can see what America is trying to do and likely will do with the Russians and the Chinese. And the big mystery of the world becomes Europe itself. What does Europe evolve as? We know at this point that they they have the European Union and it functions to some limited extent. But you cannot have on the one side NATO a military force. On the other side having nothing to do with it, the European Union economy and military capability go together. The security and well-being is based on both and therefore the Europeans have to make it and I cannot predict that they will there's nothing indicating inside of Poland a trust for Germany, inside of Germany a trust for France, inside of France I just don't see that happening so one of the important things is a vastly important economic portion of the world, Europe, continuing in this fragmented form without any joint military power is looking for very bad time if as I say we reach an understanding not friendship love understanding with Russia and China and the United States so that's the next question and that's the question that's the least transparent least easy to understand so that's what I really see here is that out of this I think comes an understanding with China not a love affair an understanding with Russia not a love affair and then the question is if the US backs out of an understanding with Europe what does Europe do and that's the part that I'm interested in let me ask you one last question linked to that I suppose looking back at Russia do you think and this perhaps will be an important question for Europe in the future. Do you think that Putin has ambitions and perhaps more accurately ambitions that he wants to put into practice uh in terms of other former Soviet states? So the Baltic states? Well, I'm not I'm not really big on personalities. Putin can have a heart attack tomorrow. It will still be Russia. Think of it as nations. Same thing can be said for Trump, some all of these leaders. Gee, okay, take a look what these nations need. Russia, the Soviet Union collapsed. Not only in terms of Europe, but also in terms of the South Caucuses, which are now in American, not hands, but pro-American also with Central Asia, Kazak, Kazakhstan, these countries are now emerging. So it has enemies potentially not there yet to their west in Europe to their east in central Asia and China and to their south in the caucuses. This is supposedly a very difficult position and that's a position Russia has not been in since long before the tarist took over. So one of the things that they have to do is reach an accommodation with these areas around them which no one really minds but the idea that these countries these regions will be under Moscow's control is not going to be there. So Russia has a great deal to do. The first effort it made to create this buffer around itself was in Ukraine. They did very badly. They're going to have to reconsider what they can do because before you go to war, you have to be confident that you could win. Japan went to war confidently win against the United States. Bad mistake in Hiroshima. Okay. So, Russia now has to go through an existential crisis. What is Russia? Is it a very large potentially prosperous country or is it a great regional imperial power and Russia has been both at the same time but never both prosperous and powerful. So Russia that's a real question not what the Americans are going to do even to some extent know what the Europeans would do that's very important. How does Russia evolve? It's lost the regions that were critical to it. It has a potentially hostile neighbor in China and the US that wants to go home and have fun, keep away from it. How does Russia evolve? So, how does Europe evolve? How does China evolve? This is a moment in history where all the things that we took for granted for the past 80 years really falls apart. In a certain sense, this is the end of the Cold War. So where the world didn't change dramatically and Russia didn't change dramatically at the end of the Cold War, this is where the United States is ending the Cold War by pulling back by no longer needing to be looked at as a trusting ally for anything anyone does responsible. And when the question that you asked was will this reduce the American prestige in the world? we are tired of worrying about how the world thinks about us. So in many ways there's an evolution going on in the United States, a very unruly one and a similar revolution take place in the world. This first act told us what Russia is. There are many more acts to be followed. But I think we've entered into the transitional state where the Cold War is no longer a relevant model, but a very different model has emerged. Why does George Friedman say Russia fail to achieve its initial aims, especially regarding its attempt to take Kiev, and what does this reveal about the limits of its military strategy? strategic overreach = situation where a country attempts more military tasks than its resources or planning allow Why can't either Russia or Ukraine win? defensive advantage = condition where defending side require fewer resources than attacking side to hold territory Why do wars without clear winners usually end in negotiation or freezing? What long-term risks do frozen wars carry? frozen conflict = unresolved war with halted fighting but no lasting agreement Why does George Friedman emphasise how little territory Russia gain after years of fighting, and how does this support his wider argument about the war’s cost? cost–benefit imbalance = situation where effort or expense far exceed resulting gains Why would continuing the war without negotiation require Western troop deployment? Why is this unrealistic and dangerous? escalation risk = likelihood that limited conflict expand into larger or more dangerous confrontation Was Trump's 28-point peace plan unfair? Why is such proposed pressure necessary to bring Russia to negotiation? strategic leverage = advantage created to influence another side’s decisions in negotiation Why does George Friedman reject the idea that air strikes alone could force Russia to yield, and how does he use history to support this point? coercive bombing = attempt to force political change through aerial attack alone What do Russia’s wartime history and economic resilience suggest about its capacity to endure hardship? economic resilience = ability of an economy to absorb shocks and continue functioning How does George Friedman describe the war’s outcome as both a disaster for Russia and a success for Ukraine? What logic does he use to support this dual assessment? strategic outcome = overall result of a conflict measured against original objectives Why isn't the issue whether Russia double-crosses the West as much as whether Western allies allow Russia to do so? How does this shift responsibility? enforcement capacity = ability of actors to monitor and act when agreements violated to double-cross = to cheat or deceive sb who trusts you (usually in connection with sth illegal or dishonest) Why does George Friedman frame Europe’s response as an existential test? What does this reveal about expectations for European unity and defence responsibility? collective resolve = shared determination among several countries to act together under pressure How could a neutral Ukraine benefit all sides? Why would such a shift be part of a larger transformation in global power relations? buffer state = country positioned between major powers that reduce direct conflict risk Why would Donald Trump aim to pull the United States out of the eastern hemisphere? What strategic shift does this represent? strategic retrenchment = reduction of international commitments to conserve resources and avoid overextension Why does George Friedman argue that withdrawing from the eastern hemisphere requires allies to assume more responsibility? How does this alter existing defence arrangements? security gap = space where reduced external protection require others to take over defence roles Are there hints of broader American fatigue with long-term conflicts? How does this sentiment influence American policy? intervention fatigue = public exhaustion after many years of military involvement abroad What economic reasoning explains why the United States wants to reduce its involvement in distant regions like the eastern hemisphere? fiscal position = condition of government finances including spending and debt How does George Friedman describe the geopolitical consequences if the United States scale back its role in the eastern hemisphere, especially for Europe and Asia? power vacuum = situation where withdrawal of a dominant power leave space for others to expand influence Why is the Trump peace plan possibly the beginning of a wider global shift? How does it connect to the end of the post Cold War order? geopolitical realignment = major change in how states organise alliances and strategic priorities How does George Friedman explain that the collapse of the Soviet Union reshapes the strategic landscape of Eurasia, and why does he say this transformation still influences current conflicts Why does George Friedman argue that the Soviet collapse leaves Russia with deep strategic insecurity, and how does he say this insecurity shapes Russia's actions today? buffer zone = area between a state and potential rivals used to increase security How does George Friedman describe the economic consequences of the Soviet collapse for Russia, and why does he see these consequences as central to its modern strategic decisions? economic shock = rapid and disruptive change to a country’s financial system How come the Soviet collapse created new nations unprepared for independence? How did this shape regional instability? What political vacuum emerged after the Soviet collapse? Why would outside powers quickly move to fill this space? How does the collapse of the Soviet Union lead to later geopolitical confrontations? Why does misunderstanding this link lead to strategic errors? post-collapse settlement = political and territorial arrangements formed after a state breaks apart 123 strategic overreach = situation where a country attempts more military tasks than its resources or planning allow defensive advantage = condition where defending side require fewer resources than attacking side to hold territory frozen conflict = unresolved war with halted fighting but no lasting agreement cost–benefit imbalance = situation where effort or expense far exceed resulting gains escalation risk = likelihood that limited conflict expand into larger or more dangerous confrontation strategic leverage = advantage created to influence another side’s decisions in negotiation coercive bombing = attempt to force political change through aerial attack alone economic resilience = ability of an economy to absorb shocks and continue functioning strategic outcome = overall result of a conflict measured against original objectives enforcement capacity = ability of actors to monitor and act when agreements violated to double-cross = to cheat or deceive sb who trusts you (usually in connection with sth illegal or dishonest) collective resolve = shared determination among several countries to act together under pressure buffer state = country positioned between major powers that reduce direct conflict risk strategic retrenchment = reduction of international commitments to conserve resources and avoid overextension security gap = space where reduced external protection require others to take over defence roles intervention fatigue = public exhaustion after many years of military involvement abroad fiscal position = condition of government finances including spending and debt power vacuum = situation where withdrawal of a dominant power leave space for others to expand influence geopolitical realignment = major change in how states organise alliances and strategic priorities buffer zone = area between a state and potential rivals used to increase security economic shock = rapid and disruptive change to a country’s financial system post-collapse settlement = political and territorial arrangements formed after a state breaks apart 122 20251208 18:05-17:00 1.5 active The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers (4/3) By the end of this session you will have studied The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 121 The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers active wip edit_ol_qa prep_ol_qa pix/icons8-movie-100_white.png Do you have to be a massive country in terms of population to be a technological leader? The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video → answer the questions]]> i want to begin with a quote from winston churchill the farther you look behind the farther you can see ahead in order to see ahead the next five years to 10 years 50 years you have to look behind that much why because it is a single road it goes here it doesn't start suddenly it draws on everything that went before it and becomes something new so to begin this discussion i want to begin with technology because there is a belief here that technology is the key to geopolitical power well perhaps it is but let's first discuss technology so for example this is a iphone you have you must have many of them it's obviously a useful tool and you have no idea of its history i will now tell you its history the cell phone was developed by the united states army in the 1970s was first deployed by the us army so her cell phone is a military tool the microchip was commissioned by the us air force to fly the f-14 and also cruise missiles gps you've used that to find your way around so did the u.s navy which commissioned the building of the gps squadron so its submarines could know where they are there's of course the camera we all love the camera i don't but my wife does it was developed for space satellite so that the film did not have to be dropped to earth it took pictures that could be transmitted as data to earth and of course there's the internet without which this wouldn't have any place which is developed by darpa defense advance research projects agency to move information from one point to another quickly so we didn't have to mail it in other words to understand the technology of this age you must understand the geopolitical requirements of the united states the military that it created and the technology that it really creek created as well so you cannot look at the cell phone the iphone the very cute little thing the camera and everything else without understanding its military origins now what does this have to do with history well the question is how does dubai or any country develop a military capability in the age of all these new technologies that are dividing the answer is look to your defense department look to your defense ministries why because the united states did something to create this technology not because it wanted to have a cell phone for you to use but because it was trying to solve military problems and those military problems had application to apple and steve jobs stole all these ideas but in america it's not stealing because the u.s government is not permitted to hold on to technology it cannot patent technology unless it's classified and this wasn't so he simply went and got together all this technology that was already there and used it so the first element of new technology artificial intelligence or whatever you want to have the first foundation of it has to be a need by some organization with enough money to invent the solution and then the state must be generous and letting the private sector have it if the united states refused to give it out which by the way the soviets also developed but wouldn't give out we wouldn't have that technology now today so there's an intimate connection not between what technology is going to do for geopolitics but what geopolitics does for technology and if you look at the iphone and think about it and you think about the minds you have here in dubai and the resources and the money that you have here in dubai you understand the first thing that you must do is define your geopolitical needs define the solutions that your technology allows you to have and then make sure the private sector use it very aggressively to create new industries every country can do it the united states did the russians did but they forgot to give it to private industry and dubai is a little country but i will begin my analysis of geopolitics with something important in the 1940s and 50s great powers had to be huge they had to be huge because the technology of bombers of bombs of warfare had enormous requirements in people we are now at a point where the number of people that are engaged in geopolitical action warfare is much less stopping that capability also does not require an america size population or china's size population it requires a skills population a population that is free to invent things to experiment to try things and that is what i would like to urge on it's not my place to urge anything but what i think is necessary for dubai is to understand that you do not have to be a massive power in population to be a great one look at israel its population is hardly worth mentioning it is a decisive force in the region you're a lie and one that is becoming globally significant because the technologies it has so the first part of what i want to talk about the next 50 years is the last 50. all of these things came to pass you're using them now you don't know where they came from they came from the ministry of defense and your ministry defense is quite capable of inventing things too certainly the israelis were so having said that Major geopolitical shifts let's talk a little about major geopolitical shifts because people always bill i just said in the panel before people always believe that this is the worst of times and they invent some past that was peaceful and loving and kind there was no such time we are not nice people we humans and we don't live in peace and we must be prepared for war and in the ukraine all of the west so stunned to find out that history hadn't changed i don't know why so let's talk about what we mean here okay at the end of world war ii an entirely new geopolitical system was created japan collapsed germany was occupied russia was in the center of europe the united states was without any doubt the leading power in the world and that existed for a very long time and we were close to war and sometimes the americans went to war foolishly in vietnam and other places but the world held together but nothing in geopolitics is permanent everything changes direction so what direction has changed here in 1991 an extraordinary year the soviet union collapsed the mazdrik treaty was signed and for the first time europe became a unified entity operation desert storm was carried out here in the neighborhood setting releasing the forces of islamic fundamentalism that ultimately attacked a 911 the united states and has wreaked havoc in the region japan had a massive economic crisis it was as stunning as any other japan went from being this enormously successful country almost overnight to being a failure and china began its rise to power in 1990 91 all of this happened in one year because all of them were linked together the weakness of the soviet union finally gave rise to a europe that was united because they were not concerned about the soviet union which gave rise to unrest in the middle east now that the united states is of a different sort japan's crisis and so on so between 1945 and 1991 the world changed completely all right this happens all the time but when it happens in your lifetime as happened in mine i was shocked shocked i say A new era we are now living in 2050 in a very similar time first we have discovered that russia is not a great power its economy ranks behind south korea's it is a weak economy its military has shown itself to be incapable of adequate planning or the execution of a war even at a country as weak as ukraine so our vision of what russia was already damaged in 1991 uh that vision is now double down and whatever the russians say we know they couldn't take kiev we know that they couldn't take ukraine we know that they couldn't survive the sanctions without stumbling and a third element emerged which i was surprised by the re-emergence of american power power and not military but economic the power of the dollar when it was denied to the russians when that denial was joined by the europeans when it was joined by japan by a worldwide coalition crushed i would say russia's capability to make war those wars are expensive in addition to that the united states discovered that it was a leader of a leader of coalitions of nato of course of knight of china as well of australia so on and so forth that when the war came there the united states discovered it could lead something it had forgotten and had also discovered that it could wage war without shooting which was a very important thing to do so the united states stood back did not engage supported the ukrainians and made it impossible for the russians to convert rubles to dollars at the federal reserve bank and that was the discovery of a new sort of power which was always there but we didn't know so where we are now is a very important place we've entered a new era but we can see that we've entered in that era only by looking backwards in looking backwards we see this is different from 1945. looking backwards we can see this is different from 1991 and therefore by looking backwards we can see what's new if you can't look backwards you can't imagine what's new and what are the things that the americans have are learning in this Space warfare well the most important question that the americans are learning in this is the centrality of space if we want to know what the russians are doing they can't hide it from space we can see them we always knew this but this is a war in which we could operationalize it and if the russians could they would destroy our satellites which they always claim to be able to do but they couldn't and so where does war go now well war went with the iphone into tactical operations on the face of the earth now we are in a different time where the real issue is not what happens on the face of the earth but happens in space from space we can see the ground and on the ground we can see soldiers and the soldiers we have seen we can order to be killed by weapons in space or weapons on the ground or what have you so the geopolitical shift that we see coming out of this one that will last forever is that we have now entered space warfare we have been there really for a very long time being able to spot soviet satellites or chinese satellites they're being able to spot ours but now space is bound up with warfare on the ground and therefore the enemy we have whoever it is must destroy our capabilities in space to command the earth you must command space to command the sea you must command space we talk about artificial intelligence and i'm not sure what that is i assume that's very good but from a geopolitical point of view we think well enough we don't need help what we need is space-based systems and the important thing about space-based assistance and i once met your minister of space a very pleasant meeting Economic power and you went to mars perhaps not on your own technology but you went a small nation can become a force in space because it doesn't require a hundred thousand men in uniform but maybe 200 to take the technologies that already exist and create something from it so when we talk about technology and war in general it comes from war we can go back to steamships we can go back to many things but war creates technology because when you go to war one you spend money and two it's life and death and so you get results we're in a new period we have seen the decline of russia and we are seeing the decline of china yes you will laugh at that idea but you would have laughed when i said russia was finished china is now in its economic end its final crisis when the united states began to be an economic power in 1919 in 20 1890 it began by selling low-cost cheap products in the world by the year 2000 the united states sold one half of all manufactured products in the world by 1930 it collapsed economically 40 years later the great depression it was it recovered japan in 1950 began its role as a chief producer it became an enormous economic power and by 1990 40 years later it collapsed the chinese economic pool the chinese economic boom really ran for 40 years and now we see the chinese economy staggering unable to pay its debts it's 35 of its economy is real estate and the largest real estate companies are defaulting on their debts we will all think this doesn't mean anything when the united states went into its crisis we thought ah it doesn't mean anything they'll be better in a week when japan went into its crisis we all thought well they'll be better in the week but they won't be they will not collapse their great power they will come out of it but not in less than 10 years as the other said and therefore what we have to look at there is that china is weakened and weakening whatever it says russia is weak in the weakening and the united states is emerging but that cannot be the only power so i will name three powers to you that i expect to rise and some of them you will laugh at because i'm always laughed at that's fine one is japan the world's third largest economy a significant military and the united population number two poland we are already seeing poland emerge in europe in this war as the decisive power as the leader and turkey which was in a terrible economic crisis and is emerging but is a pivot i can't explain why i picked these countries but i picked them ten years ago and they said they would emerge in 40 years in 40 years and 10 years ago i said russia would not be able to hold together after 2020 and china would be an economic crisis people laughed at me i like people laughing at me i like to win so anyway look at this next 50 years it will not look like the last 50 years it will not have the same technology it would not have the same culture will not have the same players do not expect that the next 50 years will be like this only more so you've seen the way the world changes and i have confidence that this country this to be very strange and interesting country has the capability of making its own way in that world and i thank you The farther you look behind the farther you can see ahead ]]> ✓ in order to see ahead the next five years to 10-50 years you have to look behind that much ✓ cellphone ← developed & deployed my the US military in the 1970s ✓ microchip ← commissioned by US Air Force to fly the F-14 ✓ GPS ← commissioned by the US Navy to locate its submarines ✓ camera ← sending images as data from space satellite instead of film ✓ the internet ← developed by DARPA (Defense Advance Research Projects Agency) to move information quickly → shows potential for becoming a pioneer in civilian applications & leader in some industries Why is technology the key to geopolitical power? [02:59-03:35] the United States did something to create this technology not because it wanted to have a cell phone for you to use but because it was trying to solve military problems ]]> There's an intimate connection not between what technology is going to do for geopolitics, but what geopolitics does for technology. ]]> ✓ some organisation with enough money to complete R&D ✓ a government willing to share technology with the private sector e.g. the Soviet Union didn't, the US did → define geopolitical needs → define solutions available with your technology → ensure the private sector uses it aggressively → create new industries How has warfare of great powers changed? [05:43-06:55] ✓ great powers had to be huge because the technology of bombers and bombs had enormous requirements in people ✓ nowadays, the number of people engaged in geopolitical action is less restrictive 〆no need for population the size of America or China → requires a skills population e.g. Israel plays a decisive role in its region despite its small size What was the status quo since 1945? [08:14-08:55] How did 1991 end that period? [08:57-10:17] in 1945 ✓ Japan collapsed ✓ Germany was occupied ✓ Russia was in the centre of Europe ✓ the United states became the leading power → relative geopolitical balance in 1991 ✓ the Soviet Union collapsed → gave rise to unrest in the middle east → Europe was not worried by a potential conflict with weak Russia any more ✓ the Maastricht treaty was signed → for the first time Europe became a unified entity ✓ operation Desert Storm was carried out → released the forces of Islamic fundamentalism → ultimately led to 911 attack → wreaked havoc in the region How could our geopolitical vision of Russia change again by 2050? [10:36-12:11] ✓ discover Russia is not a great power 〆Russian weak economy ranks behind South Korea's 〆Russian military incapable of waging war, even against a weak country like Ukraine ✓ re-emergence of American economic rather than just military power ✓ power of the dollar denied to the Russians joined by the Europeans, Japan, & worldwide coalition → crushed Russia's capability to make expensive wars What new sort of power will the United States enjoy? [12:12-13:11] ✓ leader of coalitions ✓ leader of NATO ✓ leader of China ✓ leader of Australia (...) ✓ can wage war without shooting ✓ support the Ukrainians ✓ make it impossible for Russia to convert roubles to dollars at the Federal Reserve bank → discovery of a new sort of power So where does war go now? ]]> The real issue is not what happens on the face of the earth but happens in space → enter space warfare → real enemy must be able to destroy satellites (or else isn't a serious threat) ✓ to command the earth you must command space ✓ to command the sea you must command space ]]> Technology comes from war. [16:32-16:52] ]]> 〆doesn't require a hundred thousand men in uniform ✓ perhaps 200 men are enough to deploy available technologies → Dubai could have a role in space?... ✓ war involves substantial (limitless?) amounts of spending → don't make savings ✓ war is a matter of life and death → more result-oriented What suggests the economic successes and crises of the US [17:20] Japan [17:48] China [18:08] ✓ the US became an economic power in 1890 after its civil war by selling low cost, cheap products to the world 〆collapsed in 1930 ✓ by 2000s the USA sold 50% of all manufactured products in the world = recovered ✓ Japan began its role as a chief producer in 1950 ✓ turned into the world's second-largest economy by 1988 (aka 'miracle growth') 〆collapsed in 1990, i.e. 40 years later ✓ China's economic boom began with the "Reform and Opening Up" policies in 1978 → transitioned the country from a planned economy to a more mixed one ✓ most significant period of growth occurred from the 1980s until the mid-2010s 〆now Chinese economy is staggering, unable to pay its debts What consequences does the weakening geopolitical power of Russia & China have? [18:58-] ✓ the USA can't be the single emerging economy → expect 3 powers to rise ✓ Japan [19:18] ✓ world's third largest economy ✓ significant military ✓ united population ✓ Poland [19:28] ✓ decisive power & leading role in Europe in waging war in Ukraine ✓ Turkey [19:39] Do not expect that the next 50 years will be like this, only more so ]]> ✓ will not have the same technology ✓ will not have the same culture ✓ will not have the same players Do you believe the UAE may become a significant player in the next 50 years? 〆need access to a bigger market to scale up your business 120 reveal appear | emerge | show up ]]> 20251205 16:05-17:00 1.5 active Dilemma - Consultant with a conscience By the end of this session you will have studied print Download onto your tablet or print the following pdf for our next lesson. Intelligent Business Upper Intermediate Unit 15 Consulting pg 134 reading Brief - Consultant with a conscience intelligent_business_upper_intermediate_students_book_pg127-134_unit15_consulting.pdf zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Intelligent Business B2 Case study 119 Dilemma - Consultant with a conscience active textbook Would you want to be (partly) responsible for or involved in wrong-doing? ✓ depends on how much you can get paid! → probably not worth taking the risk of going to jail What are the limits to a confidentiality clause | non-disclosure agreement? ✓ employer needs to secure their information 〆employee can't always be held accountable ✓ strike a compromise → be free from legal repercussions = if there is an official request, you must provide all information What could happen to a whistle blower? ✓ demoting, firing or laying off an employee ✓ giving an employee a worse position, pay or hours ✓ refusing to approve overtime or a promotion ✓ excluding an employee from meetings or training ✓ denying benefits ✓ failing to hire or rehire ✓ interfering with the employee’s ability to get a job somewhere else in the future ✓ making working conditions so difficult or miserable that an employee quits ✓ threatening, harassing or intimidating an employee ✓ threatening to call — or actually calling — police or immigration authorities on the employee src: https://chesleybrown.com/how-to-respond-to-a-whistleblowers-report/ pg 134 reading Brief - Consultant with a conscience pg 134 task 1 breakout room session #1 → consider options 1 2 → practise conditionals If Sue Kelly reported to a financial regulator... ✓ she'd probably lose her job immediately ✓ she'd have to provide forensic evidence that was obtained in a legal way = 2nd conditional If more consultants were whistler blowers... ✓ perhaps fewer companies would have been involved in massive frauds = mixed conditional type 1 pg 134 task 2 3 breakout room session #2 → hold a meeting → compare findings → practise reported speech T / Cl You have to report the decisions made at the meeting. → recycle the following common reporting verbs argue believe claim conclude feel maintain note remark report state warn He suggested... ✓ testifying in court against former colleagues She admitted... ✓ feeling reluctant to testify to massive fraud pg 134 listening intelligent_business_the_economist_longman/intelligent_business_upper_intermediate/intelligent_business_upper_intermediate_audio_cd02/intelligent_business_upper_intermediate_audio_cd02_track_23.ogg T / Cl Decision T / Cl What is an efficient deterrent? ✓ going to jail What did the whistle blower do before going to the regulator? ✓ sold her shares What act is mentioned? What is its goal? Sarbanes-Oxley Act (a.k.a SOX) = legislation in the US that banned audit companies from carrying out certain consulting and legal services, as well as restricting tax consulting ]]> 118 active textbook pg 134 writing minutes ]]> 117 wrong-doing = illegal or dishonest behaviour confidentiality clause | non-disclosure agreement = legally binding contract where an individual or enterprise guarantees to deal with particular data as a commercial secret and guarantees to not disclose such information to others without correct authorization to demote = to move sb to a lower position or rank, often as a punishment CFO = chief financial officer financial regulator = organisation which can work in different departments to ensure financial service companies are compliant with the law and financial regulations. Regulators also provide information to consumers to protect them from improper practices to testify = to speak seriously about something, especially in a law court, or to give or provide proof; to show something or prove that something is true whistle-blower = person who informs people in authority or the public that the company they work for is doing sth wrong or illegal alert (to sth) = aware of sth, especially a problem or danger; able to think quickly; quick to notice things deterrent /dɪˈterənt/ = thing that makes sb less likely to do sth Sarbanes-Oxley Act (a.k.a SOX) = legislation in the US that banned audit companies from carrying out certain consulting and legal services, as well as restricting tax consulting 116 in of We consider the chance of getting catched caught for wrong-doing She could be threated threatened ]]> 20251203 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? (1/2) By the end of this session you will have studied George Friedman on the Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? If the peace proposal currently under negotiation to end the war in Ukraine feels like déjà vu, you're not alone. Throughout the year, hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough have repeatedly surged and faded. But with the surprising terms of the latest proposal now on the table—and U.S. President Donald Trump hinting that this may be a "now or never" moment—the world is asking whether a real path to peace finally exists. Is the deal workable? How are Europe's leaders responding? And what fundamentals of the war risk being overlooked amid the political noise? Joining host Christian Smith to break down the proposal, assess the geopolitical dynamics shaping the negotiations, and explore the evolving economic relationship between the US and Russia and China is GPF Chairman George Friedman 20251126 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0qvJfstDNw → watch the video → answer the questions zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 115 1 Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-movie-100_white.png Isn't the war in Ukraine a sign of Russia's existential quest for a new identity? Perhaps involving isolating itself technologically & ideologically, to some extent like China? George Friedman on the Trump-Putin Peace Plan: Is It Now or Never? If the peace proposal currently under negotiation to end the war in Ukraine feels like déjà vu, you're not alone. Throughout the year, hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough have repeatedly surged and faded. But with the surprising terms of the latest proposal now on the table—and U.S. President Donald Trump hinting that this may be a "now or never" moment—the world is asking whether a real path to peace finally exists. Is the deal workable? How are Europe's leaders responding? And what fundamentals of the war risk being overlooked amid the political noise? Joining host Christian Smith to break down the proposal, assess the geopolitical dynamics shaping the negotiations, and explore the evolving economic relationship between the US and Russia and China is GPF Chairman George Friedman 20251126 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0qvJfstDNw → watch the video → answer the questions]]> If the peace proposal currently being negotiated to bring the war in Ukraine to an end feels a bit like deja vu to you, you're not the only one. The sense that peace might be close has come and gone several times this year. But although the initial terms of the deal came as a shock to many, US President Donald Trump is implying that it could be a now or never moment. So is the deal workable? Is it a stitchup? Or is it just plain and simple real politique? [Music] Well, here to discuss the proposal and to remind us of the fundamentals in this war is geopolitical futures chairman and founder George Freriedman. George, welcome. Now, we should say that things are moving fairly quickly and on Monday when we are recording this uh there were meetings happening in Geneva where Marco Rubio was there and there were a number of changes it seems to the plan. It may be more of a 19point plan than a 28-point plan. Things are moving uh fairly rapidly as we say, so just keep that in mind. But George, to start off with, let's let's stick with the fundamentals. I suppose we've covered this war a number of times on this podcast this year. Um remind us of how you see the current situation in Ukraine. 1 Well, there two things. First, Russia has failed to achieve its objectives in this war. His objective was to conquer Ukraine. That's visible by how they attacked it. They didn't just attack the eastern part that's now into question. They also attacked down the center of the country and toward Kiev, the capital. If all of these had succeeded, Ukraine would have been in the hands of Russia. The attack on Kiev failed. So did the central attack. Only one really worked out, the eastern. So we look at the original Russian intentions. They failed pretty badly. For over 3 years, they have fought and this is all they've gotten. 2 On the Ukrainian side, at the same time, there's no way they're going to be able to drive the Russians out of the land they can't occupy. The Ukrainian army is smaller. its ability to take casualties less and is much harder to carry out an attack than a defense. So in effect, neither side has won this war. And when there is no victor in the war, what always happens is a negotiated settlement or some frozen war. A frozen war is dangerous because it could reerupt at any point. And therefore, a negotiated settlement is the most reasonable outcome. And that's what being on here to find a common ground that both the Ukrainians and the Russians could live with. And look, looking at this plan right now, could this be the negotiated settlement that works, do you think? I mean, just give us a broad overview of what you make of the plan. Well, it basically doesn't make Ukraine happy and it doesn't make Russia happy. Therefore, on the whole, it should be successful. It is impossible to make both sides happy. Russia has to agree that after three and a half years, all that is caught is a relatively small part of Ukraine, the area of Luhansk and Donetsk. In to incentivize them, they're being gi. But on the other hand, they will not be permitted to put troops in Donetsk. It will be formally part of Russia but not under the military control of Russia. So that's a very important thing to understand which is how little the Russians gained from this war. How many men fell in this war women too I suppose. And that in fact they failed. On the other side, there is the fact that the Ukrainians simply don't have their own power to drive the Russians back. It's very it's much easier to defend than to attack. As I said, the option of continuing the war is that the Americans and the Europeans send troops into the Ukraine, engage the Russians, defeat them, and try to avoid a nuclear if response from the Russians. Okay? So when you look at this, all the people who say this is really unfair. Well, this is going to be what brings Russia to the table and to sign. And if they're not willing to do that, there is another option. Let's go to war. Let's land troops. Now, since none of the European countries want that, nor are they really capable of fighting the war, the other alternative is the Americans should engage in the war. From our point of view, we've engaged in so many wars since World War II, most of them ending badly, that we have no appetite for a war in Ukraine. Therefore, there is no possible solution without some concessions to the Russians that they wouldn't have had if they hadn't attacked, which is if you feel that shouldn't be rewarded, prepare to enlist. If you feel that better the war should end on these terms, well, that's another thing. There are details of it that have to be worked out of course and other dimensions of it but I see no other way to end this war but a negotiation and a negotiation in which neither side will be happy. Let's look at the Oh, I want to look at the Russian perspective in just a couple of minutes but let's just pick up on a couple of things you said there George. I mean, so as you say, it it's basically not going to happen that Western countries will be sending their troops in and to fight their war. Apart from anything else, there's the risk, as you say, of nuclear war stemming out of a direct confrontation. But many argue either A that better military support for Ukraine would change the game and mean that Ukraine can actually win or B and perhaps a combination of A and B that Russian that that pressure on the Russian economy, there's pressure on Russian oil hitting um inside Russia with long-range missiles is making a difference and that will eventually lead to Russia folding and giving up. Do do you give any credence to that point of view? Well, I don't know exactly what kind of weapons we would introduce that would induce the Russians or force the Russians to concede. In other words, uh we've done a pretty good job arming the Ukrainians. But in the end, in occupying territory is the poor bloody infantry that has to do it. The ground has to be taken even if you use missiles and so on and so forth. And it should also be remembered while the Russians tried to attack Kiev with missiles, the Ukrainians were not forced to concede. In the history of warfare, air strikes such as on London by the Germans or on Hamburg by the Americans did not force them to give up. We bombed Hanoi continually. They did not give up. The idea therefore that if we used deep air strikes on Russian targets they would give up. Well, that's not what the Ukrainians did. What they did was fought harder. So the idea that we could have a bloodless intervention where no Western lives, no American lives, no European lives are put at stake is just a fantasy. The Ukrainians have fought as well as they could. They fought better than anybody thought they would. Nevertheless, they have much smaller force than the Russians. The Russians badly. And what about the economic side of things where, you know, there's there's an idea, there's an argument from some quarters that Russia's just a year or two away from some form of collapse. That means they can't continue the war. Well, it's an amazing thing. World War II, many countries had their economies wrecked, particularly the Russian economy. They still fought the war. The choice between poverty and foreign domination is on the table and historically foreign domination is the one that people dislike the most. Particularly the Russians have a strange ability to fight in term in a context of economic collapse. That's how they fought World War II. Now will they fight it again in the same way with the same passion? I don't know. But neither did I people claiming that. So certainly the economic pressures are one of the things that stopped the Russian offensive in Ukraine in the sense they could marshall the force and could not if they went too deep survive that. But at the same time there are limits to economic pressure. There are also incentives in economic possibilities. So if the intention here is to end a war that neither side can win and could go on for a very long time is going on far longer than anybody thought it would particularly the Russians because they thought they'd win rapidly. Surprised the Ukrainians that it did so well I think and certainly no one 3 years ago would have thought that this war would still be waging in the fourth war, fourth year. And therefore the ideas that there are other options than a set of negotiated peace is is very hard to fathom. So and in a negotiated peace of this sort neither side will be happy. It's certainly giving an interesting there's interesting conclusions to be drawn on the effects of economic sanctions and that sort of thing. It's interesting to be interesting to see what happens with the sanctions on oil as well if this continues. But looking from the perspective of Russia now, I mean, as we've talked about before, Putin Putin in many ways needs an exit from this. That means he can save face. That means he can sort of sell to his the people inside the Kremlin and the country at a whole that this hasn't been a total disaster. Does this exit give Putin what he needs to do that? Well, the war hasn't been a total disaster, but it's mostly been a disaster. In other words, again to look at it correctly, they attacked to take Kiev. They entered Kiev and were driven back. They attacked from the south from Crimea. That was blocked to. So when you look at this, on the whole, this war was not lost by the Russians, but nevertheless a defeat for Russia. This was not the Russia that when I was younger and standing to fill the gap expected the Russians to be like. It was a failure for the Russians. It was a success for the Ukrainians because they survived. That alone makes them the winners of this war. So in my point of view, it may save a little face for Putin. But in fact this sort of settlement he could have had years ago without what now is million Russian casualties. So I mean the main concern for many uh many in the west and in Ukraine of course is this the idea that this is effectively some form of 1938 Munich Munich agreement an appeasement deal. And if if the deal goes ahead, all Putin will do is take over the more advantageous positions in defence, rebuild his forces and attack from a more powerful position in a couple of years time. I mean, do you think that that concern is legitimate that that could really happen? Oh, it could really happen, but the fault would rest with Europe and the United States. Part of this agreement, article 5, is that the United States and Europe in the event that the Russians renewed the attack would guarantee Ukrainian security that is intervene. So if the Europeans remain as feckless as you will in terms of rapidly evol re revolutionizing their military and if Trump is lying about what he's saying here which have cost him tremendously in the United States. Uh the question here is not Russian treachery which they're certainly treacherous. It is the question of whether or not Europe and the United States will live up to this promise. I think the United States will live up to it because we have the force to do so and also tend to respond to double crosses that way. Will the Europeans build up their military so they can keep that end of the bargain as well? Therefore, the question is not whether or not he will double cross us. It is whether we will let him be able to double cross us. And because he can't attack next time and lose this badly, assuming that he survives this fundamental defeat, it has to be understood that this is not in any way like the Munich deal. This is a recognition by the Russians that they lost the war by not winning it the way they wanted to and came out with this little. So I don't see really this as in any way appeasement of the Russians. It's simply a recognition of reality and the question of whether Russia attacks or not is really up to the United States and especially the Europeans. Well, and on that I mean I think there's a very interesting moment coming here particularly for Europe in terms of the type of security guarantee it gives to Ukraine because as we've talked about before and as people know very well you know Europe has been slow off the mark to put it mildly in many respects here. So that will be really interesting to see what they're willing to do. Well I always wonder about the Europeans. Obviously, one of the things they love to do is condemn Trump for offering this appeasement. On the other hand, there been in the past fairly slow in mobilizing their own capabilities. So, oddly enough, this is if unless they are prepared to enter the war at this time and res the Russians, the possibility the Russians might do a little better. But if they actually want peace, then they have to prepare for war. And so this is really a test of what Europe is. Is Europe anything more than a continent name? Is it a united entity? And does it have the will to stand guard in the gates? And this is from my point of view an existential moment for the Europeans. Their choice is either to end the war or to pursue it. If the decision is we should not in any way make concessions to the Russians to end this war because that's appeasement, fine, send your troops in. But Ukrainians by themselves cannot defeat the Russians, nor can they push them out of this area. So while it may be that this appears to be appeasement, it's appeasement only if both sides don't live up to the agreements. And one of the agreements is a fundamental one that the United States and the Europeans guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty. This is perhaps a bit we're going down a bit of a path here, but this perhaps a cold war mindset from me, I suppose. But when I hear the idea of a European Russian confrontation or Western Russian confrontation, I think nuclear war. That's sort of the cold war mindset that existed. I mean, is there a way that that doesn't play out? Do you see that these guarantees could lead to just a conventional war? Because I think that's the big concern. Well, on the whole, um, we have not had a nuclear war. We have not had nuclear war because of a reality. It's called MAD, mutual assured destruction. The fact is that if the United States picked up Russian missiles coming at the United States, they would within minutes retaliate with a massive strike. So there should have been a war between the United States and Russia. It never happened because of nuclear weapons. in a strange pacifist way, it imposed a certain limit. At the same time, if the Europeans say, well, there's a risk of nuclear war, therefore we will not build our forces and go into Ukraine, then the appeasement is the European appeasement that they will take that risk. The Americans have been in that state for a long time, and so we're more used to it. But I doubt very much that a nuclear war would come out of this because one of the first people to die in that war would be Putin. The leaders would be the first struck. And it just it didn't happen because it was not only irrational but devastating to the people who called for the war. Let's look at kind of this perspective coming from the White House. Um, George, of course, you've said many times that Russia hasn't won the war in the way it would have wanted to. Interestingly, here where I am in London today, the former head of MI6 was talking and he basically made the point that he thinks Steve Wickoff, the the US negotiator in Russia seems to think that Russia is winning. And now this former head of MI6 agreed with you there, George, actually that he thinks that they're not. for example used was the battle of Pogsk where Russia has suffered about 100,000 casualties just in that battle alone. I suppose the question I have for you on that is is what happens if let's say the White House or anyone else doesn't view the reality that's in front of them. They they don't see the fact that Russia is losing, and that Wickoff has convinced the White House that Russia is actually winning. I don't think that anybody thinks the Russians are winning. They have captured after 3 and 1/2 years a small segment of Ukraine. They're desperately trying in these negotiations to get just a bit more. So when you you look at that, this is not a nation that's triumphant. This is a nation that we expected in the first days of the war being marching in in Kiev, taking it and so on. It did that in Crimea, for example. So no one claim it won the war it wanted to win. At the same time it has been definitively defeated. So the point is this war can drag on as for example the Vietnam war dragged on for many years with many casualties with the United States making no progress. Okay. Or there can be a peace settlement. So, I'll make a joke. Not properly meant, but the Europeans are prepared to fight the last American is one way that the Americans put it. And in this particular case, the reality is the Russians did not succeed and therefore fear. That's a failure. The Ukrainians cannot drive them out of the land they're in. This war can continue with with battles being fought with drones being delivered to each side or an understanding made on each side. There has to be concessions and on each side there has to be guarantees. And so when you take a look at whether they won or lost, they certainly given their war plans did not succeed. They were not utterly defeated by the Ukrainians at the same time. Now there's a strong sense in Europe uh and some people might not like this but there's a strong sense that this proposal from the US that the way things are going is effectively a stab in the back is a betrayal of Ukraine. Um I mean in that sense and of course whether or not that is right or wrong there's that sense. Does the US risk serious degradation of its reputation as a result of this as an ally? Well, it has a choice. The degradation of the reputation in the face of Europeans are going to war with many casualties on the American side. But I will say to the Europeans who feel this way that stab in the back, pick up your sword and fight. Do it yourself. show that you are moral. Somehow the Europeans judge the Americans by higher standards than they judge themselves. So in all cases, the question here is, is it worth it on all sides for war to die in this war in order to save face? I don't think Trump's face is particularly embarrassed by doing this. But then if the Europeans feel that it is, they are certainly free to send troops immediately to the Ukraine and engage the Russians and be prepared for a multi-year war. So I would say it's a rational step. Stabbing back. Well, we saved to some extent Europeans and Americans together the Ukrainians. They probably would have lost the war if we hadn't come in. We did not give many lives of our own forces. But if the Europeans feel that their honor requires going to war, this is not how the Americans feel. But the Europeans should feel free at any point to do it. Do you think if if Ukraine uh decided to reject this deal and say, "No, we we can't accept this. We're going to keep fighting. We're going to have to do it without American help." Do you think the Europeans can and would be able to continue supporting it so that it could? 3 XXXXXXXXXX Well, let's look at reality. The Russians held this amount of land 3 years ago. They've not been able to advance, but they held that land and the Ukrainians have not been able to push them out. So in other words, this war has been in a static state for a very long time with relatively small movements in either direction, regaining territory, losing it. Russians clearly cannot take the entire country. The Ukrainians can't force the Russians out. If they want to go on in trying to do this, I think both sides understand that somehow tomorrow will not be better than yesterday. So all those people who argue that we have given too much to Russia should be prepared to take arms and go forward. The Americans are not. Does this mean a betrayal? Well, we're very sensitive to how the French feel about us, and we certainly worry about that a great deal, but that's not really a driving force in the United States. So whether our reputation with the Europeans goes down, the European reputation with the United States is not that high. looking at the kind of broader geopolitical map here as well and we're going to talk about China in just a moment but from the perspective of Russia in the broader geopolitical map one of the things that this will bring about if the deal is followed is the reintegration of Russia into the world economy and particularly Russia's reintegration into the G7 which would return to being the G8 of the world's largest economies h how important is that for Russia. Well, at this point, Russia is the ninth largest economy in the world. So, they've kind of slipped. But the most important point is this. One of the things that Trump held out to the Russians from the beginning was reach a peace settlement. We have no other issues with Russia. We will be happy to engage in economic relations, investments in Russia. Russia is an interesting place to invest. It has vast lands, a sophisticated workforce, cheap relative to the world system and all sorts of resources. So the this has been held out to the Russians. The Russians for to continue the war. When Trump came in, he did offer this. They continued the war. They failed to achieve very much by continuing the war. This would certainly be an opportunity for the Russians to get out of the position that they've been in as an isolated economy fighting a war with scarce resources and evolved tremendously in the same way that China evolved from its access to the American market, its exports and with American investment which was substantial. There's no reason Russian can do that. But the Russians have to make a fundamental agreement with themselves. Now we are Russia. The Soviet Union collapsed. The western part went off. So did Central Asia went off. So the South Caucuses go off. This is what Russia is now. And we will live with that because having economic relations with a country that we're also hostile to war with is impossible. And therefore, and that's true for Europe as well, the Europeans feel the same way on that score. So for Russia, it's a major boom boom. If they could do it, they could recover after years of war. An economy that is much more stressed than people understand. H well the wider game here as well of course is the issue with China which is that the US may it seems at some point soon reach a renegotiated renegotiated settlement of some variety with China in accord of living together I suppose and that means a lot to Russia but there's another dimension of this to the United States the worst nightmare for Russia is a US Chinese understanding economic and military which as we've spoken of in the past seems to be emerging slowly For the Chinese the worst nightmare is a US-Russian understanding which the Russians have fought wars even during communism battles with the Chinese they're not friends really or there can be a threeon between the three major powers of the world Russia Russia, China and the United States forming an economic community that would be dominant in the world and so on. So there is an incentive for the Russians to make a peace with the United States involved before the Chinese do. There's a reason for the Chinese to make more peace before the Russians do. And I think this is one of the dimensions of American strategy that we want to distance ourselves from the Eastern Hemisphere and its endless wars but have a more limited but profound economic tie. We've always looked at this as being Europe. Well, Europe is not necessarily the most dynamic place in the world. When we look at China, that's a much more interesting economic relationship for the United States both in imports and exports. When we look at Russia, we look at China 20 years ago when we started investing in China. Therefore, when you look at the entire picture, this is not only about Ukraine. This is about the understanding between the three major powers that pretty pretty much dominate the world. Well then, George, uh, we are geopolitical futures. Geopolitical futures does forecasting. Where might all of this be in a year, do you think at the end of 2026? Well, first of all, the war ends with Russia getting what it wanted, a buffer zone. Buffer zone that is neutralized. Ukraine comes out of this as neutral buffer. If the Russians move to attack, there's plenty of warning to be given as they cross the borders and plenty of time, long distance to intervene by the Americans, by the Europeans, particularly by the Poles. It's not a bad thing to be a buffer zone. Switzerland was created as a buffer zone between nations. There was no wars, but there was plenty of trade going over Switzerland as well as a lot of banking. Being a nucle being a neutral power in this case for Ukraine is a promising evolution for the United States. It allows us to even further move away from the eastern hemisphere and have much more interest in ma in pacifying the western hemisphere which is something we're doing right now. At the same time we have the possibility of having the similar China. The Trump idea was basically to pull ourselves out of the eastern hemisphere of the constant involvement to create a new economic relationship with the regions. And over the next four or five years, this is I think what is going to happen. The United States does not want to be involved in eastern hemispheric wars. It does not want to be consciously connected economically with China while a possible state of war is on the other side. It wants an understanding and frankly it doesn't want to see Russia becoming a hegemon in the region but it has no problem seeing Russia becoming a major economic power and so on. So I see a neutralized Ukraine that might do very well in these circumstances. I see an understanding both between the United States and Russia and China as well. Creating a new Breton Woods agreement in the way a new trading system and so on. And by no means are we entering a world of peace and love. The normal tensions will go on everywhere. But this is, I think, an element in the process that not just Trump wanted, but the United States wanted. We fought in Afghanistan. We fought in Ukraine. We fought in Vietnam. We fought South Korea. Endless wars leading to nothing but casualties. We did an economic system that was relevant in 1945, but 80 years later, it's quite a different world. So what would be engineering now is not Trump's doing. Trump is responding to the realities of history. And I think any president, perhaps not the same style, any president would be trying to disengage from Europe, from the Eastern Hemisphere. And this is where Europe becomes important. This is where Europe can either be victim again or one of the great forces, the third, fourth great force. If Europe can possibly create a United States of Europe with one government and the various nations of the European, nor the European plane or the rest of Europe being provinces, they are a major power in the world. If they continue to distrust each other as they've done for centuries, made war on each other, then they're victims. Then the Russians, the Americans, and the Chinese together will be the governing force. So what grows out of this for me is I think I can see what happens in Ukraine. I think I can see what America is trying to do and likely will do with the Russians and the Chinese. And the big mystery of the world becomes Europe itself. What does Europe evolve as? We know at this point that they they have the European Union and it functions to some limited extent. But you cannot have on the one side NATO a military force. On the other side having nothing to do with it, the European Union economy and military capability go together. The security and well-being is based on both and therefore the Europeans have to make it and I cannot predict that they will there's nothing indicating inside of Poland a trust for Germany, inside of Germany a trust for France, inside of France I just don't see that happening so one of the important things is a vastly important economic portion of the world, Europe, continuing in this fragmented form without any joint military power is looking for very bad time if as I say we reach an understanding not friendship love understanding with Russia and China and the United States so that's the next question and that's the question that's the least transparent least easy to understand so that's what I really see here is that out of this I think comes an understanding with China not a love affair an understanding with Russia not a love affair and then the question is if the US backs out of an understanding with Europe what does Europe do and that's the part that I'm interested in let me ask you one last question linked to that I suppose looking back at Russia do you think and this perhaps will be an important question for Europe in the future. Do you think that Putin has ambitions and perhaps more accurately ambitions that he wants to put into practice uh in terms of other former Soviet states? So the Baltic states? Well, I'm not I'm not really big on personalities. Putin can have a heart attack tomorrow. It will still be Russia. Think of it as nations. Same thing can be said for Trump, some all of these leaders. Gee, okay, take a look what these nations need. Russia, the Soviet Union collapsed. Not only in terms of Europe, but also in terms of the South Caucuses, which are now in American, not hands, but pro-American also with Central Asia, Kazak, Kazakhstan, these countries are now emerging. So it has enemies potentially not there yet to their west in Europe to their east in central Asia and China and to their south in the caucuses. This is supposedly a very difficult position and that's a position Russia has not been in since long before the tarist took over. So one of the things that they have to do is reach an accommodation with these areas around them which no one really minds but the idea that these countries these regions will be under Moscow's control is not going to be there. So Russia has a great deal to do. The first effort it made to create this buffer around itself was in Ukraine. They did very badly. They're going to have to reconsider what they can do because before you go to war, you have to be confident that you could win. Japan went to war confidently win against the United States. Bad mistake in Hiroshima. Okay. So, Russia now has to go through an existential crisis. What is Russia? Is it a very large potentially prosperous country or is it a great regional imperial power and Russia has been both at the same time but never both prosperous and powerful. So Russia that's a real question not what the Americans are going to do even to some extent know what the Europeans would do that's very important. How does Russia evolve? It's lost the regions that were critical to it. It has a potentially hostile neighbor in China and the US that wants to go home and have fun, keep away from it. How does Russia evolve? So, how does Europe evolve? How does China evolve? This is a moment in history where all the things that we took for granted for the past 80 years really falls apart. In a certain sense, this is the end of the Cold War. So where the world didn't change dramatically and Russia didn't change dramatically at the end of the Cold War, this is where the United States is ending the Cold War by pulling back by no longer needing to be looked at as a trusting ally for anything anyone does responsible. And when the question that you asked was will this reduce the American prestige in the world? we are tired of worrying about how the world thinks about us. So in many ways there's an evolution going on in the United States, a very unruly one and a similar revolution take place in the world. This first act told us what Russia is. There are many more acts to be followed. But I think we've entered into the transitional state where the Cold War is no longer a relevant model, but a very different model has emerged. Why does George Friedman say Russia fail to achieve its initial aims, especially regarding its attempt to take Kiev, and what does this reveal about the limits of its military strategy? strategic overreach = situation where a country attempts more military tasks than its resources or planning allow Why can't either Russia or Ukraine win? defensive advantage = condition where defending side require fewer resources than attacking side to hold territory Why do wars without clear winners usually end in negotiation or freezing? What long-term risks do frozen wars carry? frozen conflict = unresolved war with halted fighting but no lasting agreement Why does George Friedman emphasise how little territory Russia gain after years of fighting, and how does this support his wider argument about the war’s cost? cost–benefit imbalance = situation where effort or expense far exceed resulting gains Why would continuing the war without negotiation require Western troop deployment? Why is this unrealistic and dangerous? escalation risk = likelihood that limited conflict expand into larger or more dangerous confrontation Was Trump's 28-point peace plan unfair? Why is such proposed pressure necessary to bring Russia to negotiation? strategic leverage = advantage created to influence another side’s decisions in negotiation Why does George Friedman reject the idea that air strikes alone could force Russia to yield, and how does he use history to support this point? coercive bombing = attempt to force political change through aerial attack alone What do Russia’s wartime history and economic resilience suggest about its capacity to endure hardship? economic resilience = ability of an economy to absorb shocks and continue functioning How does George Friedman describe the war’s outcome as both a disaster for Russia and a success for Ukraine? What logic does he use to support this dual assessment? strategic outcome = overall result of a conflict measured against original objectives Why isn't the issue whether Russia double-crosses the West as much as whether Western allies allow Russia to do so? How does this shift responsibility? enforcement capacity = ability of actors to monitor and act when agreements violated to double-cross = to cheat or deceive sb who trusts you (usually in connection with sth illegal or dishonest) Why does George Friedman frame Europe’s response as an existential test? What does this reveal about expectations for European unity and defence responsibility? collective resolve = shared determination among several countries to act together under pressure How could a neutral Ukraine benefit all sides? Why would such a shift be part of a larger transformation in global power relations? buffer state = country positioned between major powers that reduce direct conflict risk Why would Donald Trump aim to pull the United States out of the eastern hemisphere? What strategic shift does this represent? strategic retrenchment = reduction of international commitments to conserve resources and avoid overextension Why does George Friedman argue that withdrawing from the eastern hemisphere requires allies to assume more responsibility? How does this alter existing defence arrangements? security gap = space where reduced external protection require others to take over defence roles Are there hints of broader American fatigue with long-term conflicts? How does this sentiment influence American policy? intervention fatigue = public exhaustion after many years of military involvement abroad What economic reasoning explains why the United States wants to reduce its involvement in distant regions like the eastern hemisphere? fiscal position = condition of government finances including spending and debt How does George Friedman describe the geopolitical consequences if the United States scale back its role in the eastern hemisphere, especially for Europe and Asia? power vacuum = situation where withdrawal of a dominant power leave space for others to expand influence Why is the Trump peace plan possibly the beginning of a wider global shift? How does it connect to the end of the post Cold War order? geopolitical realignment = major change in how states organise alliances and strategic priorities How does George Friedman explain that the collapse of the Soviet Union reshapes the strategic landscape of Eurasia, and why does he say this transformation still influences current conflicts Why does George Friedman argue that the Soviet collapse leaves Russia with deep strategic insecurity, and how does he say this insecurity shapes Russia's actions today? buffer zone = area between a state and potential rivals used to increase security How does George Friedman describe the economic consequences of the Soviet collapse for Russia, and why does he see these consequences as central to its modern strategic decisions? economic shock = rapid and disruptive change to a country’s financial system How come the Soviet collapse created new nations unprepared for independence? How did this shape regional instability? What political vacuum emerged after the Soviet collapse? Why would outside powers quickly move to fill this space? How does the collapse of the Soviet Union lead to later geopolitical confrontations? Why does misunderstanding this link lead to strategic errors? post-collapse settlement = political and territorial arrangements formed after a state breaks apart 114 strategic overreach = situation where a country attempts more military tasks than its resources or planning allow defensive advantage = condition where defending side require fewer resources than attacking side to hold territory frozen conflict = unresolved war with halted fighting but no lasting agreement cost–benefit imbalance = situation where effort or expense far exceed resulting gains escalation risk = likelihood that limited conflict expand into larger or more dangerous confrontation strategic leverage = advantage created to influence another side’s decisions in negotiation coercive bombing = attempt to force political change through aerial attack alone economic resilience = ability of an economy to absorb shocks and continue functioning strategic outcome = overall result of a conflict measured against original objectives enforcement capacity = ability of actors to monitor and act when agreements violated to double-cross = to cheat or deceive sb who trusts you (usually in connection with sth illegal or dishonest) collective resolve = shared determination among several countries to act together under pressure buffer state = country positioned between major powers that reduce direct conflict risk strategic retrenchment = reduction of international commitments to conserve resources and avoid overextension security gap = space where reduced external protection require others to take over defence roles intervention fatigue = public exhaustion after many years of military involvement abroad fiscal position = condition of government finances including spending and debt power vacuum = situation where withdrawal of a dominant power leave space for others to expand influence geopolitical realignment = major change in how states organise alliances and strategic priorities buffer zone = area between a state and potential rivals used to increase security economic shock = rapid and disruptive change to a country’s financial system post-collapse settlement = political and territorial arrangements formed after a state breaks apart 113 rise raised will rise ]]> 20251201 16:05-17:00 1.5 active Do we still need competition? By the end of this session you will have studied The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 112 1 Is market competition a necessity? active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png Is competition in business fierce enough to justify isolationist economic policies, or are these geopolitical concerns? Why and when do countries need protectionism? What measures do they take? ✓ protect local businesses from foreign competition ✓ use laws and policies to make it harder for foreign companies to sell their goods ✓ impose import tariffs ✓ limit how much can be imported ✓ implement rules which favour local products What are the benefits of market competition for consumers? ✓ lower prices → competition forces companies to offer better prices to attract customers ✓ higher quality → businesses are motivated to improve the quality of their goods and services to stand out from competitors ✓ more choice → competition leads to a wider variety of products and services → allows consumers to choose what best suits their needs Why do businesses need competitors on their market? ✓ efficiency and innovation → pressure to compete encourages companies to operate more efficiently → invest in research and development ✓ merit-based success → competition creates a level playing field → success is based on performance, not favouritism ✓ new opportunities → a competitive market creates new business opportunities and encourages entrepreneurship What does a country's economy rely on market competition? ✓ economic growth → competition fuels economic growth → promotes productivity → creates jobs → fosters a dynamic market cycle ✓ increased investment → competition can attract foreign investment → strengthen local industries How does free trade threaten a country's economy? How can this be mitigated? 〆invites foreign competition with domestic industries → can causes job losses → may harm key industries 〆local manufacturers move their operations to countries with fewer regulations → could potentially reward companies causing pollution or using abusive labour practices → need trade barriers ✓ make imported products more expensive and less competitive than domestically produced goods e.g. FTA = free trade agreement What are the risks of little or no competition among state-owned companies in a country under sanctions? 〆companies have little incentive to improve → may result in higher costs and less benefit for the public → need some anti-monopoly act ✓ prohibit anti-competitive behaviours e.g. price-fixing, bid rigging, mergers bid rigging = illegal practice of competitors secretly colluding to manipulate the outcome of a bidding process, such as for government contracts or auctions. This is done to prevent fair competition, ensuring a pre-determined winner receives the contract, often leading to higher prices for the customer. Common forms include agreeing to submit fake or inflated "cover bids" or taking turns to win, known as bid rotation 111 confidentiality clause | non-disclosure agreement = legally binding contract where an individual or enterprise guarantees to deal with particular data as a commercial secret and guarantees to not disclose such information to others without correct authorization anti-monopoly | anitrust law = regulations designed to promote fair competition by preventing single entities from gaining too much market power. These laws prohibit anti-competitive behaviours like price-fixing, bid rigging, and mergers that could harm competition, while also preventing companies with a dominant market position from abusing that power. Key legislation includes the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and enforcement is carried out by government bodies such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice bid rigging = illegal practice of competitors secretly colluding to manipulate the outcome of a bidding process, such as for government contracts or auctions. This is done to prevent fair competition, ensuring a pre-determined winner receives the contract, often leading to higher prices for the customer. Common forms include agreeing to submit fake or inflated "cover bids" or taking turns to win, known as bid rotation Sarbanes-Oxley Act (a.k.a SOX) = legislation in the US that banned audit companies from carrying out certain consulting and legal services, as well as restricting tax consulting. It is not an anti-monopoly law; it is a U.S. federal law designed to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures and financial reporting for public companies. It was enacted in response to financial scandals like Enron and WorldCom by strengthening corporate accountability and internal controls, not by regulating market competition or preventing monopolies FTA = free trade agreement 110 be been able to take over the market ]]> 20251128 16:35-17:30 1.5 active The passive (all forms) By the end of this session you will have studied The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> English File 4th edition B2 Unit 8 B Cutting crime 109 20211003-2135 Have something done active grammar subject + auxiliary/modal verb + object + past participle Is the agent (hairdresser) important? 〆 no → arrangement for a different person to do sth for us ✓ I have my hair cut every month by ♣my neighbour who is a butcher subject + auxiliary/modal verb + object + past participle + preposition + agent ♣ my neighbour who is a butcher = agent A hotel manager asks the customer: Will you [have served your breakfast | have your breakfast served] in your room? ✓ will you have your breakfast served = arrangement for a different person to do sth for us ... or will you have it downstairs? [arrangement | request] ≠ arrangement ✓ request, order ]]> 108 2 Have something done active deck_shuffled deck_of_phrases_have_something_done_b2_03.csv 107 Grammar practice: The passive, have something done, it is said that, he is thought to... active textbook (1) you did it yourself (2) you asked someone to do it for you = arrangement Grammar: Hedging with passive forms (it is said that, he is thought to...) T / Cl What is the difference between (1) and (2)? (1) The solution is buggy (2) The solution is said to be buggy (1) direct voice 〆suggests blame (2) passive to report = hedging ✓ more diplomatic T / Cl How can you link the following sentences together? The client is calling from an advert. The solution is tracking the advert. The solution is tracking from which advert the client is calling. The solution is tracking which advert the client is calling from. = subordinate clause The passive pg 146 listening english_file/english_file_4th_edition_2019/english_file_4th_edition_upper-intermediate/english_file_4th_edition_upper_intermediate_sb_audio/english_file_4th_edition_upper_intermediate_sb_audio_8.08.mp3 Have something done (causative have) pg 146 listening english_file/english_file_4th_edition_2019/english_file_4th_edition_upper-intermediate/english_file_4th_edition_upper_intermediate_sb_audio/english_file_4th_edition_upper_intermediate_sb_audio_8.09.mp3 Is said that, is thought to pg 146 listening english_file/english_file_4th_edition_2019/english_file_4th_edition_upper-intermediate/english_file_4th_edition_upper_intermediate_sb_audio/english_file_4th_edition_upper_intermediate_sb_audio_8.10.mp3 pg 146 ex A B C grammar ]]> 106 by from which advert the client is calling ]]> 20251126 17:05-18:00 1.5 active How is the EU recalibrating its risk exposure in Ukraine? By the end of this session you will have studied The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 105 1 How is the EU recalibrating its risk exposure in Ukraine? active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png By delaying a decision on the frozen assets, the EU preserves optionality. If Ukraine regains ground, the assets can be deployed with stronger justification. If Russia ultimately prevails, the EU avoids being seen as the architect of a failed financial intervention. This ambiguity is not indecision – it’s strategic posture. The EU is hedging its bets, quietly preparing for multiple outcomes. The longer the war drags on, the more likely unity fractures and realism overtake idealism. https://theconversation.com/by-delaying-a-decision-on-using-russias-frozen-assets-for-ukraine-europe-is-quietly-hedging-its-bets-269507 Read the article. → answer the questions]]> What are the risks of using frozen Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine? ✓ potential legal challenges regarding the seizure of state assets ✓ risk of undermining international financial norms ✓ threat of discouraging other countries from holding euros or engaging with Western financial systems ✓ escalation of tensions with Russia ✓ more complicated future diplomatic relations ✓ reputational risk → other countries such as China or India may start to view European banks as an unreliable place to park their funds How divided is the EU about using Russia's frozen assets? https://theconversation.com/by-delaying-a-decision-on-using-russias-frozen-assets-for-ukraine-europe-is-quietly-hedging-its-bets-269507 ]]> Why could the questionable trajectory of the war affect the geopolitical role of frozen assets? https://theconversation.com/by-delaying-a-decision-on-using-russias-frozen-assets-for-ukraine-europe-is-quietly-hedging-its-bets-269507 ]]> to forfeit = to lose sth or have sth taken away from you because you have done sth wrong Do frozen Russian assets include assets of individuals? ✓ frozen Russian assets include both state assets → held by the Central Bank of Russia → private assets belonging to individuals, including oligarchs and companies ! total value of private assets is significantly smaller compared to state assets Why could a US peace plan disrupt EU's efforts to rebuild Ukraine? https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/eu-urgently-seeks-agreement-using-frozen-russian-assets-ukraine-us-touts-other-2025-11-26/ ]]> What will happen to Russian frozen assets if the peace deal is signed between Ukraine and Russia? ✓ the future of Russian frozen assets will likely depend on the terms of the agreement → use assets for reconstruction in Ukraine ?! legal and political challenges remain regarding confiscation and distribution Why does the EU seem to be abandoning Ukraine? https://theconversation.com/by-delaying-a-decision-on-using-russias-frozen-assets-for-ukraine-europe-is-quietly-hedging-its-bets-269507 ]]> 104 20251117 18:05-19:00 1.5 active Can Russia go bankrupt? By the end of this session you will have studied The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 103 1 Can Russia go bankrupt? active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png Should European allies seize $300 billion in frozen Russian assets and use the money to compensate Ukraine, support its military? How consequences does war in Ukraine have on Russian companies? 〆company bankruptcies nearly triple e.g. a staggering 18,000 companies shut down in 2021 number leaped to 47,000 two years later, coinciding with one year of conflict 〆firms grapple with loan repayments e.g. at the end of 2024, over 20% of companies in the manufacturing sector were paying more than two-thirds of their pre-tax profits on debt repayments — double the number of firms as in 2023 → search for new markets to grapple = to take a firm hold of sb/sth and struggle with them; (with sth) to try hard to find a solution to a problem How is the freight transport sector affected? 〆high costs for borrowing and leasing, 〆increased recycling fees for imported equipment 〆higher prices on fuel and vehicle servicing 〆fall in demand → could push about 30% of freight carriers into bankruptcy in 2025 What does the retail trade experience in the current situation? Union of Russian Shopping Malls warned: 〆high interest rates 〆poor performance in competition with online marketplaces → could drive a quarter of shopping centres into bankruptcy What is the impact of wage arrears and unpaid wages? ✓ notable rise in unpaid wages across various sectors ✓ wage arrears quadrupling over the past year ✓ as of September 2025, total wage debt reached 1.95 billion rubles ($24 million) → affected thousands of workers, particularly in construction and mining → indicates deeper economic distress = many employees are unable to meet their financial obligations arrears = money that sb owes that they have not paid at the right time How is the Central Bank combating inflation? ✓ hiked the key interest rate to an unprecedented 21% → put a strain on businesses drowning in bank debt to hike = to increase prices, taxes, etc. suddenly by large amounts What economic challenges is Russia facing? ✓ Russian economy reeling under an economic tempest, with inflation rates soaring to 9.5% ✓ facing a rising debt problem ✓ Central Bank has raised interest rates to combat inflation, which has increased the financial burden on businesses. ✓ in 2025, corporate interest payments are projected to exceed 15 trillion rubles ($172 billion), up from 11.5 trillion rubles ($150 billion) in 2024 → led to warnings of a potential systemic banking crisis within the next year due to increasing levels of bad debt to reel = to move in a very unsteady way, for example because you are drunk or have been hit Are there any signs of resilience? ✓ in 2024, Russia reportedly outgrew all G7 nations, driven by military spending and stable oil exports redirected to markets like China and India 〆economy now experiencing stagnation, with high inflation and a potential recession looming What is Russia's external debt? ✓ as of the second quarter of 2025, Russia's external debt is approximately 323 billion USD = total amount owed to creditors outside the country At how much are valued frozen Russian assets? ✓ estimated to be at least $335 billion ~ $210 billion of that amount held in Europe, primarily in Euroclear = assets include both private and sovereign Is the Russia's economy likely to collapse in the near future? 〆Russia is facing high debt levels and rising interest rates → could lead to defaults and bankruptcies among companies. ✓ However, while the situation is serious, experts suggest that a complete economic collapse is unlikely in the near term Can seizing frozen Russian assets make Russia bankrupt? Is such a step desirable? ✓ could significantly impact Russia's financial stability 〆may not lead to outright bankruptcy → loss could pressure the government to negotiate an end to the conflict in Ukraine ✓ seizing assets may undermine confidence in the euro and other currencies → potentially lead to capital flight from Europe → complexities of international law and potential economic repercussions for Europe complicate the feasibility 102 20251113 15:05-16:00 1.5 active The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers (3/3) By the end of this session you will have studied The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 101 The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers active wip edit_ol_qa prep_ol_qa pix/icons8-movie-100_white.png Do you have to be a massive country in terms of population to be a technological leader? The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video → answer the questions]]> i want to begin with a quote from winston churchill the farther you look behind the farther you can see ahead in order to see ahead the next five years to 10 years 50 years you have to look behind that much why because it is a single road it goes here it doesn't start suddenly it draws on everything that went before it and becomes something new so to begin this discussion i want to begin with technology because there is a belief here that technology is the key to geopolitical power well perhaps it is but let's first discuss technology so for example this is a iphone you have you must have many of them it's obviously a useful tool and you have no idea of its history i will now tell you its history the cell phone was developed by the united states army in the 1970s was first deployed by the us army so her cell phone is a military tool the microchip was commissioned by the us air force to fly the f-14 and also cruise missiles gps you've used that to find your way around so did the u.s navy which commissioned the building of the gps squadron so its submarines could know where they are there's of course the camera we all love the camera i don't but my wife does it was developed for space satellite so that the film did not have to be dropped to earth it took pictures that could be transmitted as data to earth and of course there's the internet without which this wouldn't have any place which is developed by darpa defense advance research projects agency to move information from one point to another quickly so we didn't have to mail it in other words to understand the technology of this age you must understand the geopolitical requirements of the united states the military that it created and the technology that it really creek created as well so you cannot look at the cell phone the iphone the very cute little thing the camera and everything else without understanding its military origins now what does this have to do with history well the question is how does dubai or any country develop a military capability in the age of all these new technologies that are dividing the answer is look to your defense department look to your defense ministries why because the united states did something to create this technology not because it wanted to have a cell phone for you to use but because it was trying to solve military problems and those military problems had application to apple and steve jobs stole all these ideas but in america it's not stealing because the u.s government is not permitted to hold on to technology it cannot patent technology unless it's classified and this wasn't so he simply went and got together all this technology that was already there and used it so the first element of new technology artificial intelligence or whatever you want to have the first foundation of it has to be a need by some organization with enough money to invent the solution and then the state must be generous and letting the private sector have it if the united states refused to give it out which by the way the soviets also developed but wouldn't give out we wouldn't have that technology now today so there's an intimate connection not between what technology is going to do for geopolitics but what geopolitics does for technology and if you look at the iphone and think about it and you think about the minds you have here in dubai and the resources and the money that you have here in dubai you understand the first thing that you must do is define your geopolitical needs define the solutions that your technology allows you to have and then make sure the private sector use it very aggressively to create new industries every country can do it the united states did the russians did but they forgot to give it to private industry and dubai is a little country but i will begin my analysis of geopolitics with something important in the 1940s and 50s great powers had to be huge they had to be huge because the technology of bombers of bombs of warfare had enormous requirements in people we are now at a point where the number of people that are engaged in geopolitical action warfare is much less stopping that capability also does not require an america size population or china's size population it requires a skills population a population that is free to invent things to experiment to try things and that is what i would like to urge on it's not my place to urge anything but what i think is necessary for dubai is to understand that you do not have to be a massive power in population to be a great one look at israel its population is hardly worth mentioning it is a decisive force in the region you're a lie and one that is becoming globally significant because the technologies it has so the first part of what i want to talk about the next 50 years is the last 50. all of these things came to pass you're using them now you don't know where they came from they came from the ministry of defense and your ministry defense is quite capable of inventing things too certainly the israelis were so having said that Major geopolitical shifts let's talk a little about major geopolitical shifts because people always bill i just said in the panel before people always believe that this is the worst of times and they invent some past that was peaceful and loving and kind there was no such time we are not nice people we humans and we don't live in peace and we must be prepared for war and in the ukraine all of the west so stunned to find out that history hadn't changed i don't know why so let's talk about what we mean here okay at the end of world war ii an entirely new geopolitical system was created japan collapsed germany was occupied russia was in the center of europe the united states was without any doubt the leading power in the world and that existed for a very long time and we were close to war and sometimes the americans went to war foolishly in vietnam and other places but the world held together but nothing in geopolitics is permanent everything changes direction so what direction has changed here in 1991 an extraordinary year the soviet union collapsed the mazdrik treaty was signed and for the first time europe became a unified entity operation desert storm was carried out here in the neighborhood setting releasing the forces of islamic fundamentalism that ultimately attacked a 911 the united states and has wreaked havoc in the region japan had a massive economic crisis it was as stunning as any other japan went from being this enormously successful country almost overnight to being a failure and china began its rise to power in 1990 91 all of this happened in one year because all of them were linked together the weakness of the soviet union finally gave rise to a europe that was united because they were not concerned about the soviet union which gave rise to unrest in the middle east now that the united states is of a different sort japan's crisis and so on so between 1945 and 1991 the world changed completely all right this happens all the time but when it happens in your lifetime as happened in mine i was shocked shocked i say A new era we are now living in 2050 in a very similar time first we have discovered that russia is not a great power its economy ranks behind south korea's it is a weak economy its military has shown itself to be incapable of adequate planning or the execution of a war even at a country as weak as ukraine so our vision of what russia was already damaged in 1991 uh that vision is now double down and whatever the russians say we know they couldn't take kiev we know that they couldn't take ukraine we know that they couldn't survive the sanctions without stumbling and a third element emerged which i was surprised by the re-emergence of american power power and not military but economic the power of the dollar when it was denied to the russians when that denial was joined by the europeans when it was joined by japan by a worldwide coalition crushed i would say russia's capability to make war those wars are expensive in addition to that the united states discovered that it was a leader of a leader of coalitions of nato of course of knight of china as well of australia so on and so forth that when the war came there the united states discovered it could lead something it had forgotten and had also discovered that it could wage war without shooting which was a very important thing to do so the united states stood back did not engage supported the ukrainians and made it impossible for the russians to convert rubles to dollars at the federal reserve bank and that was the discovery of a new sort of power which was always there but we didn't know so where we are now is a very important place we've entered a new era but we can see that we've entered in that era only by looking backwards in looking backwards we see this is different from 1945. looking backwards we can see this is different from 1991 and therefore by looking backwards we can see what's new if you can't look backwards you can't imagine what's new and what are the things that the americans have are learning in this Space warfare well the most important question that the americans are learning in this is the centrality of space if we want to know what the russians are doing they can't hide it from space we can see them we always knew this but this is a war in which we could operationalize it and if the russians could they would destroy our satellites which they always claim to be able to do but they couldn't and so where does war go now well war went with the iphone into tactical operations on the face of the earth now we are in a different time where the real issue is not what happens on the face of the earth but happens in space from space we can see the ground and on the ground we can see soldiers and the soldiers we have seen we can order to be killed by weapons in space or weapons on the ground or what have you so the geopolitical shift that we see coming out of this one that will last forever is that we have now entered space warfare we have been there really for a very long time being able to spot soviet satellites or chinese satellites they're being able to spot ours but now space is bound up with warfare on the ground and therefore the enemy we have whoever it is must destroy our capabilities in space to command the earth you must command space to command the sea you must command space we talk about artificial intelligence and i'm not sure what that is i assume that's very good but from a geopolitical point of view we think well enough we don't need help what we need is space-based systems and the important thing about space-based assistance and i once met your minister of space a very pleasant meeting Economic power and you went to mars perhaps not on your own technology but you went a small nation can become a force in space because it doesn't require a hundred thousand men in uniform but maybe 200 to take the technologies that already exist and create something from it so when we talk about technology and war in general it comes from war we can go back to steamships we can go back to many things but war creates technology because when you go to war one you spend money and two it's life and death and so you get results we're in a new period we have seen the decline of russia and we are seeing the decline of china yes you will laugh at that idea but you would have laughed when i said russia was finished china is now in its economic end its final crisis when the united states began to be an economic power in 1919 in 20 1890 it began by selling low-cost cheap products in the world by the year 2000 the united states sold one half of all manufactured products in the world by 1930 it collapsed economically 40 years later the great depression it was it recovered japan in 1950 began its role as a chief producer it became an enormous economic power and by 1990 40 years later it collapsed the chinese economic pool the chinese economic boom really ran for 40 years and now we see the chinese economy staggering unable to pay its debts it's 35 of its economy is real estate and the largest real estate companies are defaulting on their debts we will all think this doesn't mean anything when the united states went into its crisis we thought ah it doesn't mean anything they'll be better in a week when japan went into its crisis we all thought well they'll be better in the week but they won't be they will not collapse their great power they will come out of it but not in less than 10 years as the other said and therefore what we have to look at there is that china is weakened and weakening whatever it says russia is weak in the weakening and the united states is emerging but that cannot be the only power so i will name three powers to you that i expect to rise and some of them you will laugh at because i'm always laughed at that's fine one is japan the world's third largest economy a significant military and the united population number two poland we are already seeing poland emerge in europe in this war as the decisive power as the leader and turkey which was in a terrible economic crisis and is emerging but is a pivot i can't explain why i picked these countries but i picked them ten years ago and they said they would emerge in 40 years in 40 years and 10 years ago i said russia would not be able to hold together after 2020 and china would be an economic crisis people laughed at me i like people laughing at me i like to win so anyway look at this next 50 years it will not look like the last 50 years it will not have the same technology it would not have the same culture will not have the same players do not expect that the next 50 years will be like this only more so you've seen the way the world changes and i have confidence that this country this to be very strange and interesting country has the capability of making its own way in that world and i thank you The farther you look behind the farther you can see ahead ]]> ✓ in order to see ahead the next five years to 10-50 years you have to look behind that much ✓ cellphone ← developed & deployed my the US military in the 1970s ✓ microchip ← commissioned by US Air Force to fly the F-14 ✓ GPS ← commissioned by the US Navy to locate its submarines ✓ camera ← sending images as data from space satellite instead of film ✓ the internet ← developed by DARPA (Defense Advance Research Projects Agency) to move information quickly → shows potential for becoming a pioneer in civilian applications & leader in some industries Why is technology the key to geopolitical power? [02:59-03:35] the United States did something to create this technology not because it wanted to have a cell phone for you to use but because it was trying to solve military problems ]]> There's an intimate connection not between what technology is going to do for geopolitics, but what geopolitics does for technology. ]]> ✓ some organisation with enough money to complete R&D ✓ a government willing to share technology with the private sector e.g. the Soviet Union didn't, the US did → define geopolitical needs → define solutions available with your technology → ensure the private sector uses it aggressively → create new industries How has warfare of great powers changed? [05:43-06:55] ✓ great powers had to be huge because the technology of bombers and bombs had enormous requirements in people ✓ nowadays, the number of people engaged in geopolitical action is less restrictive 〆no need for population the size of America or China → requires a skills population e.g. Israel plays a decisive role in its region despite its small size What was the status quo since 1945? [08:14-08:55] How did 1991 end that period? [08:57-10:17] in 1945 ✓ Japan collapsed ✓ Germany was occupied ✓ Russia was in the centre of Europe ✓ the United states became the leading power → relative geopolitical balance in 1991 ✓ the Soviet Union collapsed → gave rise to unrest in the middle east → Europe was not worried by a potential conflict with weak Russia any more ✓ the Maastricht treaty was signed → for the first time Europe became a unified entity ✓ operation Desert Storm was carried out → released the forces of Islamic fundamentalism → ultimately led to 911 attack → wreaked havoc in the region How could our geopolitical vision of Russia change again by 2050? [10:36-12:11] ✓ discover Russia is not a great power 〆Russian weak economy ranks behind South Korea's 〆Russian military incapable of waging war, even against a weak country like Ukraine ✓ re-emergence of American economic rather than just military power ✓ power of the dollar denied to the Russians joined by the Europeans, Japan, & worldwide coalition → crushed Russia's capability to make expensive wars What new sort of power will the United States enjoy? [12:12-13:11] ✓ leader of coalitions ✓ leader of NATO ✓ leader of China ✓ leader of Australia (...) ✓ can wage war without shooting ✓ support the Ukrainians ✓ make it impossible for Russia to convert roubles to dollars at the Federal Reserve bank → discovery of a new sort of power So where does war go now? ]]> The real issue is not what happens on the face of the earth but happens in space → enter space warfare → real enemy must be able to destroy satellites (or else isn't a serious threat) ✓ to command the earth you must command space ✓ to command the sea you must command space ]]> Technology comes from war. [16:32-16:52] ]]> 〆doesn't require a hundred thousand men in uniform ✓ perhaps 200 men are enough to deploy available technologies → Dubai could have a role in space?... ✓ war involves substantial (limitless?) amounts of spending → don't make savings ✓ war is a matter of life and death → more result-oriented What suggests the economic successes and crises of the US [17:20] Japan [17:48] China [18:08] ✓ the US became an economic power in 1890 after its civil war by selling low cost, cheap products to the world 〆collapsed in 1930 ✓ by 2000s the USA sold 50% of all manufactured products in the world = recovered ✓ Japan began its role as a chief producer in 1950 ✓ turned into the world's second-largest economy by 1988 (aka 'miracle growth') 〆collapsed in 1990, i.e. 40 years later ✓ China's economic boom began with the "Reform and Opening Up" policies in 1978 → transitioned the country from a planned economy to a more mixed one ✓ most significant period of growth occurred from the 1980s until the mid-2010s 〆now Chinese economy is staggering, unable to pay its debts What consequences does the weakening geopolitical power of Russia & China have? [18:58-] ✓ the USA can't be the single emerging economy → expect 3 powers to rise ✓ Japan [19:18] ✓ world's third largest economy ✓ significant military ✓ united population ✓ Poland [19:28] ✓ decisive power & leading role in Europe in waging war in Ukraine ✓ Turkey [19:39] Do not expect that the next 50 years will be like this, only more so ]]> ✓ will not have the same technology ✓ will not have the same culture ✓ will not have the same players Do you believe the UAE may become a significant player in the next 50 years? 〆need access to a bigger market to scale up your business 100 20251112 17:05-18:00 1.5 active The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers (2/3) By the end of this session you will have studied The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 99 The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers active wip edit_ol_qa prep_ol_qa pix/icons8-movie-100_white.png Do you have to be a massive country in terms of population to be a technological leader? The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video → answer the questions]]> i want to begin with a quote from winston churchill the farther you look behind the farther you can see ahead in order to see ahead the next five years to 10 years 50 years you have to look behind that much why because it is a single road it goes here it doesn't start suddenly it draws on everything that went before it and becomes something new so to begin this discussion i want to begin with technology because there is a belief here that technology is the key to geopolitical power well perhaps it is but let's first discuss technology so for example this is a iphone you have you must have many of them it's obviously a useful tool and you have no idea of its history i will now tell you its history the cell phone was developed by the united states army in the 1970s was first deployed by the us army so her cell phone is a military tool the microchip was commissioned by the us air force to fly the f-14 and also cruise missiles gps you've used that to find your way around so did the u.s navy which commissioned the building of the gps squadron so its submarines could know where they are there's of course the camera we all love the camera i don't but my wife does it was developed for space satellite so that the film did not have to be dropped to earth it took pictures that could be transmitted as data to earth and of course there's the internet without which this wouldn't have any place which is developed by darpa defense advance research projects agency to move information from one point to another quickly so we didn't have to mail it in other words to understand the technology of this age you must understand the geopolitical requirements of the united states the military that it created and the technology that it really creek created as well so you cannot look at the cell phone the iphone the very cute little thing the camera and everything else without understanding its military origins now what does this have to do with history well the question is how does dubai or any country develop a military capability in the age of all these new technologies that are dividing the answer is look to your defense department look to your defense ministries why because the united states did something to create this technology not because it wanted to have a cell phone for you to use but because it was trying to solve military problems and those military problems had application to apple and steve jobs stole all these ideas but in america it's not stealing because the u.s government is not permitted to hold on to technology it cannot patent technology unless it's classified and this wasn't so he simply went and got together all this technology that was already there and used it so the first element of new technology artificial intelligence or whatever you want to have the first foundation of it has to be a need by some organization with enough money to invent the solution and then the state must be generous and letting the private sector have it if the united states refused to give it out which by the way the soviets also developed but wouldn't give out we wouldn't have that technology now today so there's an intimate connection not between what technology is going to do for geopolitics but what geopolitics does for technology and if you look at the iphone and think about it and you think about the minds you have here in dubai and the resources and the money that you have here in dubai you understand the first thing that you must do is define your geopolitical needs define the solutions that your technology allows you to have and then make sure the private sector use it very aggressively to create new industries every country can do it the united states did the russians did but they forgot to give it to private industry and dubai is a little country but i will begin my analysis of geopolitics with something important in the 1940s and 50s great powers had to be huge they had to be huge because the technology of bombers of bombs of warfare had enormous requirements in people we are now at a point where the number of people that are engaged in geopolitical action warfare is much less stopping that capability also does not require an america size population or china's size population it requires a skills population a population that is free to invent things to experiment to try things and that is what i would like to urge on it's not my place to urge anything but what i think is necessary for dubai is to understand that you do not have to be a massive power in population to be a great one look at israel its population is hardly worth mentioning it is a decisive force in the region you're a lie and one that is becoming globally significant because the technologies it has so the first part of what i want to talk about the next 50 years is the last 50. all of these things came to pass you're using them now you don't know where they came from they came from the ministry of defense and your ministry defense is quite capable of inventing things too certainly the israelis were so having said that Major geopolitical shifts let's talk a little about major geopolitical shifts because people always bill i just said in the panel before people always believe that this is the worst of times and they invent some past that was peaceful and loving and kind there was no such time we are not nice people we humans and we don't live in peace and we must be prepared for war and in the ukraine all of the west so stunned to find out that history hadn't changed i don't know why so let's talk about what we mean here okay at the end of world war ii an entirely new geopolitical system was created japan collapsed germany was occupied russia was in the center of europe the united states was without any doubt the leading power in the world and that existed for a very long time and we were close to war and sometimes the americans went to war foolishly in vietnam and other places but the world held together but nothing in geopolitics is permanent everything changes direction so what direction has changed here in 1991 an extraordinary year the soviet union collapsed the mazdrik treaty was signed and for the first time europe became a unified entity operation desert storm was carried out here in the neighborhood setting releasing the forces of islamic fundamentalism that ultimately attacked a 911 the united states and has wreaked havoc in the region japan had a massive economic crisis it was as stunning as any other japan went from being this enormously successful country almost overnight to being a failure and china began its rise to power in 1990 91 all of this happened in one year because all of them were linked together the weakness of the soviet union finally gave rise to a europe that was united because they were not concerned about the soviet union which gave rise to unrest in the middle east now that the united states is of a different sort japan's crisis and so on so between 1945 and 1991 the world changed completely all right this happens all the time but when it happens in your lifetime as happened in mine i was shocked shocked i say A new era we are now living in 2050 in a very similar time first we have discovered that russia is not a great power its economy ranks behind south korea's it is a weak economy its military has shown itself to be incapable of adequate planning or the execution of a war even at a country as weak as ukraine so our vision of what russia was already damaged in 1991 uh that vision is now double down and whatever the russians say we know they couldn't take kiev we know that they couldn't take ukraine we know that they couldn't survive the sanctions without stumbling and a third element emerged which i was surprised by the re-emergence of american power power and not military but economic the power of the dollar when it was denied to the russians when that denial was joined by the europeans when it was joined by japan by a worldwide coalition crushed i would say russia's capability to make war those wars are expensive in addition to that the united states discovered that it was a leader of a leader of coalitions of nato of course of knight of china as well of australia so on and so forth that when the war came there the united states discovered it could lead something it had forgotten and had also discovered that it could wage war without shooting which was a very important thing to do so the united states stood back did not engage supported the ukrainians and made it impossible for the russians to convert rubles to dollars at the federal reserve bank and that was the discovery of a new sort of power which was always there but we didn't know so where we are now is a very important place we've entered a new era but we can see that we've entered in that era only by looking backwards in looking backwards we see this is different from 1945. looking backwards we can see this is different from 1991 and therefore by looking backwards we can see what's new if you can't look backwards you can't imagine what's new and what are the things that the americans have are learning in this Space warfare well the most important question that the americans are learning in this is the centrality of space if we want to know what the russians are doing they can't hide it from space we can see them we always knew this but this is a war in which we could operationalize it and if the russians could they would destroy our satellites which they always claim to be able to do but they couldn't and so where does war go now well war went with the iphone into tactical operations on the face of the earth now we are in a different time where the real issue is not what happens on the face of the earth but happens in space from space we can see the ground and on the ground we can see soldiers and the soldiers we have seen we can order to be killed by weapons in space or weapons on the ground or what have you so the geopolitical shift that we see coming out of this one that will last forever is that we have now entered space warfare we have been there really for a very long time being able to spot soviet satellites or chinese satellites they're being able to spot ours but now space is bound up with warfare on the ground and therefore the enemy we have whoever it is must destroy our capabilities in space to command the earth you must command space to command the sea you must command space we talk about artificial intelligence and i'm not sure what that is i assume that's very good but from a geopolitical point of view we think well enough we don't need help what we need is space-based systems and the important thing about space-based assistance and i once met your minister of space a very pleasant meeting Economic power and you went to mars perhaps not on your own technology but you went a small nation can become a force in space because it doesn't require a hundred thousand men in uniform but maybe 200 to take the technologies that already exist and create something from it so when we talk about technology and war in general it comes from war we can go back to steamships we can go back to many things but war creates technology because when you go to war one you spend money and two it's life and death and so you get results we're in a new period we have seen the decline of russia and we are seeing the decline of china yes you will laugh at that idea but you would have laughed when i said russia was finished china is now in its economic end its final crisis when the united states began to be an economic power in 1919 in 20 1890 it began by selling low-cost cheap products in the world by the year 2000 the united states sold one half of all manufactured products in the world by 1930 it collapsed economically 40 years later the great depression it was it recovered japan in 1950 began its role as a chief producer it became an enormous economic power and by 1990 40 years later it collapsed the chinese economic pool the chinese economic boom really ran for 40 years and now we see the chinese economy staggering unable to pay its debts it's 35 of its economy is real estate and the largest real estate companies are defaulting on their debts we will all think this doesn't mean anything when the united states went into its crisis we thought ah it doesn't mean anything they'll be better in a week when japan went into its crisis we all thought well they'll be better in the week but they won't be they will not collapse their great power they will come out of it but not in less than 10 years as the other said and therefore what we have to look at there is that china is weakened and weakening whatever it says russia is weak in the weakening and the united states is emerging but that cannot be the only power so i will name three powers to you that i expect to rise and some of them you will laugh at because i'm always laughed at that's fine one is japan the world's third largest economy a significant military and the united population number two poland we are already seeing poland emerge in europe in this war as the decisive power as the leader and turkey which was in a terrible economic crisis and is emerging but is a pivot i can't explain why i picked these countries but i picked them ten years ago and they said they would emerge in 40 years in 40 years and 10 years ago i said russia would not be able to hold together after 2020 and china would be an economic crisis people laughed at me i like people laughing at me i like to win so anyway look at this next 50 years it will not look like the last 50 years it will not have the same technology it would not have the same culture will not have the same players do not expect that the next 50 years will be like this only more so you've seen the way the world changes and i have confidence that this country this to be very strange and interesting country has the capability of making its own way in that world and i thank you The farther you look behind the farther you can see ahead ]]> ✓ in order to see ahead the next five years to 10-50 years you have to look behind that much ✓ cellphone ← developed & deployed my the US military in the 1970s ✓ microchip ← commissioned by US Air Force to fly the F-14 ✓ GPS ← commissioned by the US Navy to locate its submarines ✓ camera ← sending images as data from space satellite instead of film ✓ the internet ← developed by DARPA (Defense Advance Research Projects Agency) to move information quickly → shows potential for becoming a pioneer in civilian applications & leader in some industries Why is technology the key to geopolitical power? [02:59-03:35] the United States did something to create this technology not because it wanted to have a cell phone for you to use but because it was trying to solve military problems ]]> There's an intimate connection not between what technology is going to do for geopolitics, but what geopolitics does for technology. ]]> ✓ some organisation with enough money to complete R&D ✓ a government willing to share technology with the private sector e.g. the Soviet Union didn't, the US did → define geopolitical needs → define solutions available with your technology → ensure the private sector uses it aggressively → create new industries How has warfare of great powers changed? [05:43-06:55] ✓ great powers had to be huge because the technology of bombers and bombs had enormous requirements in people ✓ nowadays, the number of people engaged in geopolitical action is less restrictive 〆no need for population the size of America or China → requires a skills population e.g. Israel plays a decisive role in its region despite its small size What was the status quo since 1945? [08:14-08:55] How did 1991 end that period? [08:57-10:17] in 1945 ✓ Japan collapsed ✓ Germany was occupied ✓ Russia was in the centre of Europe ✓ the United states became the leading power → relative geopolitical balance in 1991 ✓ the soviet Union collapsed → gave rise to unrest in the middle east → Europe was not worried by a potential conflict with weak Russia any more ✓ the Maastricht treaty was signed → for the first time Europe became a unified entity ✓ operation Desert Storm was carried out → released the forces of Islamic fundamentalism → ultimately led to 911 attack → wreaked havoc in the region How could our geopolitical vision of Russia change again by 2050? [10:36-12:11] ✓ discover Russia is not a great power 〆Russian weak economy ranks behind South Korea's 〆Russian military incapable of waging war, even against a weak country like Ukraine ✓ re-emergence of American economic rather than just military power ✓ power of the dollar denied to the Russians joined by the Europeans, Japan, & worldwide coalition → crushed Russia's capability to make expensive wars What new sort of power will the United States enjoy? [12:12-13:11] ✓ leader of coalitions ✓ leader of NATO ✓ leader of China ✓ leader of Australia (...) ✓ can wage war without shooting ✓ support the Ukrainians ✓ make it impossible for Russia to convert roubles to dollars at the Federal Reserve bank → discovery of a new sort of power So where does war go now? ]]> The real issue is not what happens on the face of the earth but happens in space → enter space warfare → real enemy must be able to destroy satellites (or else isn't a serious threat) ✓ to command the earth you must command space ✓ to command the sea you must command space ]]> Technology comes from war. [16:32-16:52] ]]> 〆doesn't require a hundred thousand men in uniform ✓ perhaps 200 men are enough to deploy available technologies → Dubai could have a role in space?... ✓ war involves substantial (limitless?) amounts of spending → don't make savings ✓ war is a matter of life and death → more result-oriented What suggests the economic successes and crises of the US [17:20] Japan [17:48] China [18:08] ✓ the US became an economic power in 1890 after its civil war by selling low cost, cheap products to the world 〆collapsed in 1930 ✓ by 2000s the USA sold 50% of all manufactured products in the world = recovered ✓ Japan began its role as a chief producer in 1950 ✓ turned into the world's second-largest economy by 1988 (aka 'miracle growth') 〆collapsed in 1990, i.e. 40 years later ✓ China's economic boom began with the "Reform and Opening Up" policies in 1978 → transitioned the country from a planned economy to a more mixed one ✓ most significant period of growth occurred from the 1980s until the mid-2010s 〆now Chinese economy is staggering, unable to pay its debts What consequences does the weakening geopolitical power of Russia & China have? [18:58-] ✓ the USA can't be the single emerging economy → expect 3 powers to rise ✓ Japan [19:18] ✓ world's third largest economy ✓ significant military ✓ united population ✓ Poland [19:28] ✓ decisive power & leading role in Europe in waging war in Ukraine ✓ Turkey [19:39] Do not expect that the next 50 years will be like this, only more so ]]> ✓ will not have the same technology ✓ will not have the same culture ✓ will not have the same players Do you believe the UAE may become a significant player in the next 50 years? 〆need access to a bigger market to scale up your business 98 20251110 18:05-19:00 1.5 active The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers (1/3) By the end of this session you will have studied The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 97 The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers active wip prep_ol_qa edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-movie-100_white.png Do you have to be a massive country in terms of population to be a technological leader? The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers Could technological advancements be the key to achieving geopolitical power? Dr. George Friedman, Founder and Chairman, Geopolitical Futures, contributes his knowledge in a session titled "The World in 2050: Characteristics of New Rising Powers." 20220407 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcq-Z0uMEAU → watch the video → answer the questions]]> i want to begin with a quote from winston churchill the farther you look behind the farther you can see ahead in order to see ahead the next five years to 10 years 50 years you have to look behind that much why because it is a single road it goes here it doesn't start suddenly it draws on everything that went before it and becomes something new so to begin this discussion i want to begin with technology because there is a belief here that technology is the key to geopolitical power well perhaps it is but let's first discuss technology so for example this is a iphone you have you must have many of them it's obviously a useful tool and you have no idea of its history i will now tell you its history the cell phone was developed by the united states army in the 1970s was first deployed by the us army so her cell phone is a military tool the microchip was commissioned by the us air force to fly the f-14 and also cruise missiles gps you've used that to find your way around so did the u.s navy which commissioned the building of the gps squadron so its submarines could know where they are there's of course the camera we all love the camera i don't but my wife does it was developed for space satellite so that the film did not have to be dropped to earth it took pictures that could be transmitted as data to earth and of course there's the internet without which this wouldn't have any place which is developed by darpa defense advance research projects agency to move information from one point to another quickly so we didn't have to mail it in other words to understand the technology of this age you must understand the geopolitical requirements of the united states the military that it created and the technology that it really creek created as well so you cannot look at the cell phone the iphone the very cute little thing the camera and everything else without understanding its military origins now what does this have to do with history well the question is how does dubai or any country develop a military capability in the age of all these new technologies that are dividing the answer is look to your defense department look to your defense ministries why because the united states did something to create this technology not because it wanted to have a cell phone for you to use but because it was trying to solve military problems and those military problems had application to apple and steve jobs stole all these ideas but in america it's not stealing because the u.s government is not permitted to hold on to technology it cannot patent technology unless it's classified and this wasn't so he simply went and got together all this technology that was already there and used it so the first element of new technology artificial intelligence or whatever you want to have the first foundation of it has to be a need by some organization with enough money to invent the solution and then the state must be generous and letting the private sector have it if the united states refused to give it out which by the way the soviets also developed but wouldn't give out we wouldn't have that technology now today so there's an intimate connection not between what technology is going to do for geopolitics but what geopolitics does for technology and if you look at the iphone and think about it and you think about the minds you have here in dubai and the resources and the money that you have here in dubai you understand the first thing that you must do is define your geopolitical needs define the solutions that your technology allows you to have and then make sure the private sector use it very aggressively to create new industries every country can do it the united states did the russians did but they forgot to give it to private industry and dubai is a little country but i will begin my analysis of geopolitics with something important in the 1940s and 50s great powers had to be huge they had to be huge because the technology of bombers of bombs of warfare had enormous requirements in people we are now at a point where the number of people that are engaged in geopolitical action warfare is much less stopping that capability also does not require an america size population or china's size population it requires a skills population a population that is free to invent things to experiment to try things and that is what i would like to urge on it's not my place to urge anything but what i think is necessary for dubai is to understand that you do not have to be a massive power in population to be a great one look at israel its population is hardly worth mentioning it is a decisive force in the region you're a lie and one that is becoming globally significant because the technologies it has so the first part of what i want to talk about the next 50 years is the last 50. all of these things came to pass you're using them now you don't know where they came from they came from the ministry of defense and your ministry defense is quite capable of inventing things too certainly the israelis were so having said that Major geopolitical shifts let's talk a little about major geopolitical shifts because people always bill i just said in the panel before people always believe that this is the worst of times and they invent some past that was peaceful and loving and kind there was no such time we are not nice people we humans and we don't live in peace and we must be prepared for war and in the ukraine all of the west so stunned to find out that history hadn't changed i don't know why so let's talk about what we mean here okay at the end of world war ii an entirely new geopolitical system was created japan collapsed germany was occupied russia was in the center of europe the united states was without any doubt the leading power in the world and that existed for a very long time and we were close to war and sometimes the americans went to war foolishly in vietnam and other places but the world held together but nothing in geopolitics is permanent everything changes direction so what direction has changed here in 1991 an extraordinary year the soviet union collapsed the mazdrik treaty was signed and for the first time europe became a unified entity operation desert storm was carried out here in the neighborhood setting releasing the forces of islamic fundamentalism that ultimately attacked a 911 the united states and has wreaked havoc in the region japan had a massive economic crisis it was as stunning as any other japan went from being this enormously successful country almost overnight to being a failure and china began its rise to power in 1990 91 all of this happened in one year because all of them were linked together the weakness of the soviet union finally gave rise to a europe that was united because they were not concerned about the soviet union which gave rise to unrest in the middle east now that the united states is of a different sort japan's crisis and so on so between 1945 and 1991 the world changed completely all right this happens all the time but when it happens in your lifetime as happened in mine i was shocked shocked i say A new era we are now living in 2050 in a very similar time first we have discovered that russia is not a great power its economy ranks behind south korea's it is a weak economy its military has shown itself to be incapable of adequate planning or the execution of a war even at a country as weak as ukraine so our vision of what russia was already damaged in 1991 uh that vision is now double down and whatever the russians say we know they couldn't take kiev we know that they couldn't take ukraine we know that they couldn't survive the sanctions without stumbling and a third element emerged which i was surprised by the re-emergence of american power power and not military but economic the power of the dollar when it was denied to the russians when that denial was joined by the europeans when it was joined by japan by a worldwide coalition crushed i would say russia's capability to make war those wars are expensive in addition to that the united states discovered that it was a leader of a leader of coalitions of nato of course of knight of china as well of australia so on and so forth that when the war came there the united states discovered it could lead something it had forgotten and had also discovered that it could wage war without shooting which was a very important thing to do so the united states stood back did not engage supported the ukrainians and made it impossible for the russians to convert rubles to dollars at the federal reserve bank and that was the discovery of a new sort of power which was always there but we didn't know so where we are now is a very important place we've entered a new era but we can see that we've entered in that era only by looking backwards in looking backwards we see this is different from 1945. looking backwards we can see this is different from 1991 and therefore by looking backwards we can see what's new if you can't look backwards you can't imagine what's new and what are the things that the americans have are learning in this Space warfare well the most important question that the americans are learning in this is the centrality of space if we want to know what the russians are doing they can't hide it from space we can see them we always knew this but this is a war in which we could operationalize it and if the russians could they would destroy our satellites which they always claim to be able to do but they couldn't and so where does war go now well war went with the iphone into tactical operations on the face of the earth now we are in a different time where the real issue is not what happens on the face of the earth but happens in space from space we can see the ground and on the ground we can see soldiers and the soldiers we have seen we can order to be killed by weapons in space or weapons on the ground or what have you so the geopolitical shift that we see coming out of this one that will last forever is that we have now entered space warfare we have been there really for a very long time being able to spot soviet satellites or chinese satellites they're being able to spot ours but now space is bound up with warfare on the ground and therefore the enemy we have whoever it is must destroy our capabilities in space to command the earth you must command space to command the sea you must command space we talk about artificial intelligence and i'm not sure what that is i assume that's very good but from a geopolitical point of view we think well enough we don't need help what we need is space-based systems and the important thing about space-based assistance and i once met your minister of space a very pleasant meeting Economic power and you went to mars perhaps not on your own technology but you went a small nation can become a force in space because it doesn't require a hundred thousand men in uniform but maybe 200 to take the technologies that already exist and create something from it so when we talk about technology and war in general it comes from war we can go back to steamships we can go back to many things but war creates technology because when you go to war one you spend money and two it's life and death and so you get results we're in a new period we have seen the decline of russia and we are seeing the decline of china yes you will laugh at that idea but you would have laughed when i said russia was finished china is now in its economic end its final crisis when the united states began to be an economic power in 1919 in 20 1890 it began by selling low-cost cheap products in the world by the year 2000 the united states sold one half of all manufactured products in the world by 1930 it collapsed economically 40 years later the great depression it was it recovered japan in 1950 began its role as a chief producer it became an enormous economic power and by 1990 40 years later it collapsed the chinese economic pool the chinese economic boom really ran for 40 years and now we see the chinese economy staggering unable to pay its debts it's 35 of its economy is real estate and the largest real estate companies are defaulting on their debts we will all think this doesn't mean anything when the united states went into its crisis we thought ah it doesn't mean anything they'll be better in a week when japan went into its crisis we all thought well they'll be better in the week but they won't be they will not collapse their great power they will come out of it but not in less than 10 years as the other said and therefore what we have to look at there is that china is weakened and weakening whatever it says russia is weak in the weakening and the united states is emerging but that cannot be the only power so i will name three powers to you that i expect to rise and some of them you will laugh at because i'm always laughed at that's fine one is japan the world's third largest economy a significant military and the united population number two poland we are already seeing poland emerge in europe in this war as the decisive power as the leader and turkey which was in a terrible economic crisis and is emerging but is a pivot i can't explain why i picked these countries but i picked them ten years ago and they said they would emerge in 40 years in 40 years and 10 years ago i said russia would not be able to hold together after 2020 and china would be an economic crisis people laughed at me i like people laughing at me i like to win so anyway look at this next 50 years it will not look like the last 50 years it will not have the same technology it would not have the same culture will not have the same players do not expect that the next 50 years will be like this only more so you've seen the way the world changes and i have confidence that this country this to be very strange and interesting country has the capability of making its own way in that world and i thank you The farther you look behind the farther you can see ahead ]]> ✓ in order to see ahead the next five years to 10-50 years you have to look behind that much ✓ cellphone ← developed & deployed my the US military in the 1970s ✓ microchip ← commissioned by US Air Force to fly the F-14 ✓ GPS ← commissioned by the US Navy to locate its submarines ✓ camera ← sending images as data from space satellite instead of film ✓ the internet ← developed by DARPA (Defense Advance Research Projects Agency) to move information quickly → shows potential for becoming a pioneer in civilian applications & leader in some industries Why is technology the key to geopolitical power? [02:59-03:35] the United States did something to create this technology not because it wanted to have a cell phone for you to use but because it was trying to solve military problems ]]> There's an intimate connection not between what technology is going to do for geopolitics, but what geopolitics does for technology. ]]> ✓ some organisation with enough money to complete R&D ✓ a government willing to share technology with the private sector e.g. the Soviet Union didn't, the US did → define geopolitical needs → define solutions available with your technology → ensure the private sector uses it aggressively → create new industries How has warfare of great powers changed? [05:43-06:55] ✓ great powers had to be huge because the technology of bombers and bombs had enormous requirements in people ✓ nowadays, the number of people engaged in geopolitical action is less restrictive 〆no need for population the size of America or China → requires a skills population e.g. Israel plays a decisive role in its region despite its small size What was the status quo since 1945? [08:14-08:55] How did 1991 end that period? [08:57-10:17] in 1945 ✓ Japan collapsed ✓ Germany was occupied ✓ Russia was in the centre of Europe ✓ the United states became the leading power → relative geopolitical balance in 1991 ✓ the soviet Union collapsed → gave rise to unrest in the middle east → Europe was not worried by a potential conflict with weak Russia any more ✓ the Maastricht treaty was signed → for the first time Europe became a unified entity ✓ operation Desert Storm was carried out → released the forces of Islamic fundamentalism → ultimately led to 911 attack → wreaked havoc in the region How could our geopolitical vision of Russia change again by 2050? [10:36-12:11] ✓ discover Russia is not a great power 〆Russian weak economy ranks behind South Korea's 〆Russian military incapable of waging war, even against a weak country like Ukraine ✓ re-emergence of American economic rather than just military power ✓ power of the dollar denied to the Russians joined by the Europeans, Japan, & worldwide coalition → crushed Russia's capability to make expensive wars What new sort of power will the United States enjoy? [12:12-13:11] ✓ leader of coalitions ✓ leader of NATO ✓ leader of China ✓ leader of Australia (...) ✓ can wage war without shooting ✓ support the Ukrainians ✓ make it impossible for Russia to convert roubles to dollars at the Federal Reserve bank → discovery of a new sort of power So where does war go now? ]]> The real issue is not what happens on the face of the earth but happens in space → enter space warfare → real enemy must be able to destroy satellites (or else isn't a serious threat) ✓ to command the earth you must command space ✓ to command the sea you must command space ]]> Technology comes from war. [16:32-16:52] ]]> 〆doesn't require a hundred thousand men in uniform ✓ perhaps 200 men are enough to deploy available technologies → Dubai could have a role in space?... ✓ war involves substantial (limitless?) amounts of spending → don't make savings ✓ war is a matter of life and death → more result-oriented What suggests the economic successes and crises of the US [17:20] Japan [17:48] China [18:08] ✓ the US became an economic power in 1890 after its civil war by selling low cost, cheap products to the world 〆collapsed in 1930 ✓ by 2000s the USA sold 50% of all manufactured products in the world = recovered ✓ Japan began its role as a chief producer in 1950 ✓ turned into the world's second-largest economy by 1988 (aka 'miracle growth') 〆collapsed in 1990, i.e. 40 years later ✓ China's economic boom began with the "Reform and Opening Up" policies in 1978 → transitioned the country from a planned economy to a more mixed one ✓ most significant period of growth occurred from the 1980s until the mid-2010s 〆now Chinese economy is staggering, unable to pay its debts What consequences does the weakening geopolitical power of Russia & China have? [18:58-] ✓ the USA can't be the single emerging economy → expect 3 powers to rise ✓ Japan [19:18] ✓ world's third largest economy ✓ significant military ✓ united population ✓ Poland [19:28] ✓ decisive power & leading role in Europe in waging war in Ukraine ✓ Turkey [19:39] Do not expect that the next 50 years will be like this, only more so ]]> ✓ will not have the same technology ✓ will not have the same culture ✓ will not have the same players Do you believe the UAE may become a significant player in the next 50 years? 〆need access to a bigger market to scale up your business 96 20251107 16:05-17:00 1.5 active Retiring in 2050 - feedback By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 95 1 Retiring in 2050 active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png Which towns or countries would be a good choice for a white collar to retire in 2050? Numbeo Cost of Living Index by Country 2025 Mid-Year Cost of Living Index by Country 2025 Mid-Year. ; 32, Cyprus, 55.2 ; 33, United Arab Emirates, 53.4 ; 34, Malta, 53.1 ; 35, Uruguay, 51.3.Read more Mercer Quality of Living City Ranking 2024 Zurich, Switzerland, tops the Quality of Living City Ranking for 2024. It is followed by Vienna, Austria, and Geneva, Switzerland, in second and third place. ef.edu EF EPI | EF English Proficiency Index | EF United States The 2024 edition of the EF English Proficiency Index ranks 113 countries and regions by their English skills. gain.nd.edu Rankings - Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative The ND-GAIN Country Index summarizes a country's vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges in combination with its readiness to improve ... Institute for Economics & Peace Global Peace Index 2024 July 19, 2024 — Yemen is the least peaceful country in the world in the 2024 GPI, followed by Sudan, South Sudan, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. This is the first year that Yemen ... Travel + Leisure These Countries Were Just Named Safer for Retirees Than ... May 27, 2025 — May 27, 2025 — Portugal made the list thanks to its place at No. 7 on the Global Peace Index list and No. 2 on International Living's Global Retirement Index. MoneyWeek Best and worst countries for retirement - where does the UK rank? September 11, 2025 — A new analysis by Natixis ranks the best and worst countries for retirement based on factors such as healthcare, quality of life, finances during retirement, and material wellbeing. Norway tops the list with a score of 83%, praised for its exceptional healthcare (92%) and quality of life (88%), despite a relatively high tax burden. Ireland and Switzerland follow closely, scoring 82% and 81% respectively. Iceland and Denmark also make the top five with 79% each. In contrast, India ranks as the worst country for retirement with a score of just 8%, primarily due to poor performance in healthcare, quality of life, and wellbeing, although it scored well in retirement finances. Colombia, Turkey, China, and Brazil round out the bottom five. The UK ranks 14th, scoring 72%. It performs well in healthcare (88%) but struggles in material wellbeing due to economic challenges and a weak labour market. Additionally, the article provides guidance on taxation rules for retirees abroad, including the importance of understanding how pensions are taxed, potential for double taxation, inheritance tax considerations, and the implications of healthcare and residency post-Brexit. internationalliving.com Best Places to Retire in 2025: The Annual Global ... Discover the best places in the world to retire in 2025, where affordable living meets rich culture, stunning landscapes, and vibrant expat communities. internationalliving.com The 10 Safest Places to Retire in 2025 May 19, 2025 — The 2024 Global Peace Index, which considers crime as well as war and terrorism, ranked Spain the 23rd safest country in the world. The U.S. ... globalcitizensolutions.com Best Countries for Americans to Retire (2025) See the best countries to retire in the world in 2025: costs, healthcare, visas, safety, and Social Security tips for U.S. retirees. globalcitizensolutions.com Global Retirement Report Oct 14, 2025 — This year's ranking is led by Portugal, Mauritius, Spain, Uruguay, and Austria, countries that excel across our six sub-indexes and set the gold ... wikipedia.org EF English Proficiency Index 2024 country rankings ; Netherlands, 636, Very high proficiency ; Norway, 610, Very high proficiency ; Singapore, 609, Very high proficiency ; Sweden, 608, Very ... wikipedia.org City quality of life indices Mercer's Quality of Living Ranking 2024. Rank, City, Country/Region. 1, Zürich. Switzerland. 2, Vienna. Austria. 3, Geneva. Switzerland. 4, Copenhagen. Denmark. mercer.com Cost of Living City Ranking 2024 According to Mercer's 2024 cost-of-living data, Hong Kong, Singapore and Zurich are currently the costliest cities for international workers. numbeo.com Cost of Living Index by City 2025 Mid-Year Larnaca, Cyprus, 52.8. 201, San Jose, Costa Rica, 52.0. 202, Ras al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates, 51.9. 203, Prague, Czech Republic, 51.9. 204, Kingston, ...Read more numbeo.com Cost of Living Index by Country 2025 Costa Rica, 50.1. 34, Cyprus, 49.5. 35, Estonia, 49.4. 36, Trinidad And Tobago, 48.9. 37, Yemen, 48.4. 38, Bahrain, 48.3. 39, Malta, 48.0. 40, Qatar, 47.5. 41 ...Read more numbeo.com Cost of Living Index by City 2025 You are viewing the Cost of Living Index 2025. These indexes are historical and are published periodically, providing a snapshot of the data at a specific point ...Read more numbeo.com Quality of Life Index by Country 2025 Mid-Year Quality of Life Index by Country 2025 Mid-Year. ; 53, Turkey, 134.0 ; 54, Ecuador, 130.8 ; 55, Costa Rica, 130.2 ; 56, Georgia, 129.1.Read more numbeo.com Quality of Life Index by City 2024 Quality of Life Index by City 2024 ; 38, Brisbane, Australia, 169.5 ; 39, Columbus, OH, United States, 169.1 ; 40, Tucson, AZ, United States, 167.0 ; 41, Salt Lake ... numbeo.com Cost of Living Comparison Between Two Countries This tool provides a comprehensive analysis, empowering you to make informed decisions about the financial implications of living in different countries.Read more numbeo.com Numbeo - Cost of living Numbeo is the world's largest cost of living database and a crowdsourced global resource for quality of life data. It provides insights into cost of living, ...Read more visionofhumanity.org Global Peace Index Map » The Most & Least ... Iceland, Ireland, Austria, New Zealand, and Singapore are the top 5 most peaceful countries in the world in 2024. visionofhumanity.org Global Peace Index 2025 This is the 19th edition of the Global Peace Index (GPI), which ranks 163 independent states and territories according to their level of peacefulness, covering ... visionofhumanity.org 10 Most Peaceful Countries in the World – 2024 Sep 20, 2024 — 10. Malaysia crosses into the top ten most peaceful countries in 2024 Global Peace Index. · 9. Slovenia · 8. Denmark · 7. Portugal · 6. Switzerland ... nd.edu Country Index - Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative ND-GAIN Index Country Rankings. Top 5 Countries, Score. 1. Norway. 76.7. 2. Finland ... India is the 104th most ready country and the 59th most vulnerable country ... nd.edu Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative // University of Notre ... Country Index. Free and open source, the ND-GAIN Country Index uses two decades of data across 45 indicators to rank 185 countries annually based upon their ... nd.edu Download Data - Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative Download up to half a million data points for more than 180 UN countries. Data is updated annually, but includes all ND-GAIN indicators across 20+ years. nd.edu ND-GAIN releases latest Country Index update Jun 25, 2025 — The ND-GAIN Country Index ranks 185 nations according to how vulnerable they are to climate change and how prepared they are to deal with climate change's ... nd.edu Vulnerability rankings ND-GAIN measures the overall vulnerability by considering vulnerability in six life-supporting sectors – food, water, health, ecosystem service, human habitat ... nd.edu Country Rankings The ND-GAIN Country Index summarizes a country's vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges in combination with its readiness to improve ... nd.edu ND-GAIN Index ND-GAIN Index Country Rankings. Top 5 Countries, Score. 1. Norway. 76.7. 2. Finland ... India is the 104th most ready country and the 59th most vulnerable country ... worldpopulationreview.com EF English Proficiency Index by Country 2025 The country with the highest score was the Netherlands with 647. The other countries in the top five were Singapore, Austria, Denmark, and Norway. worldpopulationreview.com Safest Countries in the World 2025 Iceland has been the safest country in the world for the 14th year in a row, according to the Global Peace Index. The Nordic countries of Europe (Norway, ... worldpopulationreview.com Best Countries to Retire 2025 Some of the countries that are considered the best places to retire in include Mexico, Portugal, Costa Rica, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, Slovenia ... worldpopulationreview.com Most Expensive Countries to Live In 2025 Cayman Islands, Singapore, Switzerland, Iceland, United States, and the Bahamas appear on both Living Cost's and Numbeo's lists of the most expensive countries ...Read more iasservices.org.uk Best countries to retire in 2025: A Guide | IAS Aug 8, 2025 — Thailand is one of the cheapest countries to retire in without compromising living standards. It attracts thousands of expat retirees because of ... ef.com EF EPI 2024 Mar 28, 2013 — The worldwide level of English proficiency has declined for the fourth year running, with 60% of countries in the index scoring lower this year ... benefitnews.com Vienna, Zurich among 20 cities with the highest quality of life Jan 26, 2024 — Mercer ranked 241 cities across five continents according to quality of life factors like safety, national stability, public services, cultural richness, ... forbes.com The Best Places To Retire Abroad In 2025 Jul 19, 2025 — Here are the top 24 countries, and 96 recommended spots, based on costs, amenities, health care, language, crime, climate risk and whether US retirees are ... studytravel.network EF English Proficiency Index 2024 shows decline in major ... Nov 14, 2024 — The EF English Proficiency Index 2024 is based on the results of 2.1 million EF Standard English Tests taken in 2023 in 116 countries, and is ... internations.org The Cities with the Best (& Worst) Quality of Life Valencia ranks 1st for the Quality of Life Index and 1st overall in the 2024 Expat City Ranking. Four of the index's five subcategories place in the top 5. facebook.com Top 15 Countries with Best Healthcare & Low Cost ... Top 15 Countries with Best Healthcare & Low Cost of Living (2025): • Portugal • Costa Rica • Thailand • Malaysia • Mexico • Panama • Colombia • ...Read more facebook.com The 2024 EF English Proficiency Index (EPI) ranks 116 ... European countries dominate the top tier, with Norway placing second (610), followed closely by Sweden (608), Croatia (607), Portugal (605), and ... facebook.com Retiring abroad might just be the safest decision you ever ... Retiring abroad might just be the safest decision you ever make. ✨ The U.S. now ranks 132nd on the Global Peace Index—while countries ... facebook.com Zurich tops 2024 Mercer quality of living ranking 2. Safe & Clean – Vienna consistently ranks among the safest and cleanest cities in the world. 3. Affordable & High-Quality Healthcare – Austria ... facebook.com EF English Proficiency Index 2024 With moderate proficiency, Hong Kong, India, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and Macau are placed 33rd, 34th, 37th, 38th, 40th, and 41st, ... facebook.com International Living has unveiled its Best Places to Retire in ... Malaysia ranks #7, and Thailand secures #10 among Southeast Asian countries on the list. Here's the Top 10: 1. Panama 2. Portugal ...Read more savvynomad.io 116 Key Expat Statistics for 2025: Where Are People ... Feb 14, 2025 — Top retirement destinations include Spain, Portugal, Panama, Mexico, and Thailand. Aging populations in Western countries are leading more ... instagram.com The EF English Proficiency Index 2024 remains a key ... The Netherlands ranks first, followed by very high proficiency countries like Norway, Sweden, Croatia, Portugal, and Denmark. Germany appears in ... instagram.com Retiring abroad might just be the safest decision you ever ... Retiring abroad might just be the safest decision you ever make. ✨⁠ ⁠ The U.S. now ranks 132nd on the Global Peace Index—while countries ... instagram.com In case you're thinking about moving to another country: ... Mercer's 2024 Quality of Living Report ranks cities for expats, with Zurich as the top choice due to its great public services, low crime, and vibrant culture. indiatimes.com World's top 10 cities offering 'Quality of Life' in 2024 Dec 16, 2024 — European cities dominate the list, with Zurich, Vienna, and Geneva leading the way, praised for safety, healthcare, and culture. germanwatch.org Climate Risk Index 2025 The Climate Risk Index (CRI) ranks countries by the human and economic toll of extreme weather. The latest edition highlights increasing losses. nippon.com Japan Slides Further in English Proficiency Ranking Nov 28, 2024 — EF English Proficiency Ranking for 2024 (Selected Countries). 1, Netherlands. 2, Norway. 3, Singapore. 4, Sweden. 5, Croatia. 6, Portugal. 7 ... yahoo.com These Countries Were Just Named Safer for Retirees Than ... May 27, 2025 — Portugal made the list thanks to its place at No. 7 on the Global Peace Index list and No. 2 on International Living's Global Retirement Index. ef.edu About EF EPI | EF English Proficiency Index The EF English Proficiency Index (EF EPI) is the world's largest ranking of countries/regions by adult English skills. Published annually, the EF EPI is an ... columbia.edu Global Climate Risk Index Ranks 188 Countries by ... Jun 25, 2025 — The Climate Finance Vulnerability Index ranks 188 countries according to both their vulnerability to hazards and their financial resilience. brighttax.com The 14 Best Countries to Retire in 2025 Oct 5, 2025 — Panama has reclaimed the #1 spot in International Living's 2025 Global Retirement Index, praised for its affordable healthcare, Pensionado visa, ... What cost-of-living and taxation factors should an English-speaking, middle-class white-collar consider when choosing a retirement town or country for 2050? ✓ choose locations with sustainably lower cost-of-living indices than current home country, balancing price and service quality ✓ prioritise jurisdictions with favourable pension tax rules and double taxation agreements for pension income ✓ budget for health insurance and long-term care costs alongside everyday expenses ✓ factor currency stability and inflation-hedging options when planning retirement income ✓ consider local goods and services availability rather than headline rental rates ✓ expect regional variations inside a country affecting affordability and lifestyle cost of living = measure of price level for consumer goods, housing, food and services in a place tax treaty = agreement between countries to prevent double taxation on income such as pensions How should healthcare quality and accessibility steer the choice of retirement location by 2050, given ageing needs? ✓ prioritise countries with strong primary care networks and accessible hospitals within reasonable travel time ✓ check presence of specialised geriatric and chronic-disease services in target towns or regions ✓ verify eligibility for public healthcare or cost-effective private insurance for foreign retirees ✓ consider medical tourism infrastructure for elective procedures where safe and regulated ✓ expect telemedicine expansion to improve remote monitoring and continuity of care universal coverage = health system where most people receive healthcare paid or subsidised by government geriatric care = medical and social services specialising in older people and chronic conditions How important is English proficiency and an expat community for quality of life, and which countries show strong English usage now? ✓ favour countries and towns scoring high on English proficiency indices for easier daily life and services ✓ seek established expat enclaves providing social networks, orientation and informal support ✓ check availability of English-language medical and legal services in the locale ✓ value multilingual local populations for cultural engagement while retaining English convenience ✓ expect growing English proficiency in many non-anglophone countries by 2050 driven by education and tech English proficiency index = ranking of countries by population ability in English based on standardised testing and data expat enclave = neighbourhood or town with a concentrated community of foreign residents offering shared language and services What climate and environmental risks should influence the decision for a retirement place in 2050, and how to evaluate long-term resilience? ✓ evaluate ND-GAIN or equivalent indices for vulnerability and readiness to adapt to climate impacts ✓ avoid low-lying coastal towns with projected sea-level rise and increased storm exposure unless strong defences exist ✓ prefer regions with diversified water sources and lower projected heat extremes for older-age comfort ✓ assess local infrastructure investment plans for flood control, heat mitigation and health-service resilience ✓ expect insurers and mortgage lenders to price climate risk into living costs and availability climate vulnerability = degree to which a place is likely to suffer harm from climate hazards adaptive capacity = ability of a country or community to prepare for, respond to and recover from environmental changes ND-GAIN Country Index = tool developed by the University of Notre Dame that measures a country's vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges, along with its readiness to adapt. It provides a ranking for over 180 countries based on a combination of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity) and readiness (ability to leverage investment for adaptation) scores. Higher scores on the index are considered better because they indicate lower vulnerability and higher readiness How should safety and social stability weigh on the choice, and which countries currently score well on peace and public security metrics? ✓ prefer countries with high Global Peace Index rankings for lower risk of organised violence and political instability ✓ research local rates of violent and petty crime in candidate towns rather than national averages ✓ consider social cohesion indicators such as trust, civic services and reliable law enforcement for everyday safety ✓ favour places with transparent governance and low corruption for predictable interactions and legal certainty ✓ expect some urban centres to require local precautions while smaller towns may offer calmer living global peace index = composite ranking of countries by levels of safety, security and ongoing conflict petty crime = minor crimes like pickpocketing or burglary more likely to affect daily life Which European and non-European towns or countries show a balanced mix of affordability, healthcare, English use, safety and climate readiness for a 2050 retiree? ✓ consider Portugal (coastal towns and secondary cities) for affordable healthcare access, high peace ranking and growing expat communities ✓ envisage Malta and Cyprus for English-friendly services, EU standards and compact healthcare systems ✓ consider parts of Canada (Atlantic provinces, smaller cities) for quality healthcare, English usage and low climate vulnerability in many areas ✓ look at Costa Rica for affordable healthcare, stable democracy and strong climate adaptation policies in some provinces ✓ take into account Malaysia (Penang, Ipoh) for lower cost, English usage in services and established expat hubs blended index = combined assessment using cost, healthcare, safety, climate and language measures secondary city = city smaller than the main national capital offering lower costs and good services How should visa, residency rules and pension taxation influence choosing a retirement jurisdiction for 2050? ✓ prioritise countries offering clear long-term retirement visas or residency pathways with healthcare access ✓ check bilateral social-security agreements and pension portability rules affecting pension taxation and benefits ✓ plan for residency requirements that may affect tax residence status and access to public services ✓ seek financial advice on inheritance, capital gains and local tax treatment of foreign pensions ✓ expect some countries to introduce targeted incentives for skilled or wealthy retirees, changing costs and requirements residency permit = legal authorisation to live in a country for an extended period often with rights to work or access services pension portability = ability to receive pension payments and benefits while living abroad without losing entitlements What housing and local-transport considerations will matter for comfortable ageing in place by 2050? ✓ favour towns with accessible housing stock or retrofit programmes for low-step entries, wider doorways and single-floor living ✓ value proximity to reliable public transport, healthcare and shops for reduced car dependence and social inclusion ✓ assess local planning for walkability, benches, shade and safe pedestrian routes for older residents ✓ consider rental flexibility versus ownership given maintenance and mobility changes over time ✓ expect advances in assistive technology and smart-home retrofits to improve independent living age-friendly housing = homes designed or adapted for accessibility and safety as people age transit-oriented = neighbourhoods designed around public transport nodes reducing reliance on private cars 94 cost of living = measure of price level for consumer goods, housing, food and services in a place tax treaty = agreement between countries to prevent double taxation on income such as pensions universal coverage = health system where most people receive healthcare paid or subsidised by government geriatric care = medical and social services specialising in older people and chronic conditions English proficiency index = ranking of countries by population ability in English based on standardised testing and data expat enclave = neighbourhood or town with a concentrated community of foreign residents offering shared language and services climate vulnerability = degree to which a place is likely to suffer harm from climate hazards adaptive capacity = ability of a country or community to prepare for, respond to and recover from environmental changes ND-GAIN Country Index = tool developed by the University of Notre Dame that measures a country's vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges, along with its readiness to adapt. It provides a ranking for over 180 countries based on a combination of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity) and readiness (ability to leverage investment for adaptation) scores. Higher scores on the index are considered better because they indicate lower vulnerability and higher readiness global peace index = composite ranking of countries by levels of safety, security and ongoing conflict petty crime = minor crimes like pickpocketing or burglary more likely to affect daily life blended index = combined assessment using cost, healthcare, safety, climate and language measures secondary city = city smaller than the main national capital offering lower costs and good services residency permit = legal authorisation to live in a country for an extended period often with rights to work or access services pension portability = ability to receive pension payments and benefits while living abroad without losing entitlements age-friendly housing = homes designed or adapted for accessibility and safety as people age transit-oriented = neighbourhoods designed around public transport nodes reducing reliance on private cars 93 job work Lots of improvements that I can do make ]]> 20251023 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Retiring in 2050 By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 92 1 Retiring in 2050 active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png Which towns or countries would be a good choice for a white collar to retire in 2050? Numbeo Cost of Living Index by Country 2025 Mid-Year Cost of Living Index by Country 2025 Mid-Year. ; 32, Cyprus, 55.2 ; 33, United Arab Emirates, 53.4 ; 34, Malta, 53.1 ; 35, Uruguay, 51.3.Read more Mercer Quality of Living City Ranking 2024 Zurich, Switzerland, tops the Quality of Living City Ranking for 2024. It is followed by Vienna, Austria, and Geneva, Switzerland, in second and third place. ef.edu EF EPI | EF English Proficiency Index | EF United States The 2024 edition of the EF English Proficiency Index ranks 113 countries and regions by their English skills. gain.nd.edu Rankings - Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative The ND-GAIN Country Index summarizes a country's vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges in combination with its readiness to improve ... Institute for Economics & Peace Global Peace Index 2024 July 19, 2024 — Yemen is the least peaceful country in the world in the 2024 GPI, followed by Sudan, South Sudan, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. This is the first year that Yemen ... Travel + Leisure These Countries Were Just Named Safer for Retirees Than ... May 27, 2025 — May 27, 2025 — Portugal made the list thanks to its place at No. 7 on the Global Peace Index list and No. 2 on International Living's Global Retirement Index. MoneyWeek Best and worst countries for retirement - where does the UK rank? September 11, 2025 — A new analysis by Natixis ranks the best and worst countries for retirement based on factors such as healthcare, quality of life, finances during retirement, and material wellbeing. Norway tops the list with a score of 83%, praised for its exceptional healthcare (92%) and quality of life (88%), despite a relatively high tax burden. Ireland and Switzerland follow closely, scoring 82% and 81% respectively. Iceland and Denmark also make the top five with 79% each. In contrast, India ranks as the worst country for retirement with a score of just 8%, primarily due to poor performance in healthcare, quality of life, and wellbeing, although it scored well in retirement finances. Colombia, Turkey, China, and Brazil round out the bottom five. The UK ranks 14th, scoring 72%. It performs well in healthcare (88%) but struggles in material wellbeing due to economic challenges and a weak labour market. Additionally, the article provides guidance on taxation rules for retirees abroad, including the importance of understanding how pensions are taxed, potential for double taxation, inheritance tax considerations, and the implications of healthcare and residency post-Brexit. internationalliving.com Best Places to Retire in 2025: The Annual Global ... Discover the best places in the world to retire in 2025, where affordable living meets rich culture, stunning landscapes, and vibrant expat communities. internationalliving.com The 10 Safest Places to Retire in 2025 May 19, 2025 — The 2024 Global Peace Index, which considers crime as well as war and terrorism, ranked Spain the 23rd safest country in the world. The U.S. ... globalcitizensolutions.com Best Countries for Americans to Retire (2025) See the best countries to retire in the world in 2025: costs, healthcare, visas, safety, and Social Security tips for U.S. retirees. globalcitizensolutions.com Global Retirement Report Oct 14, 2025 — This year's ranking is led by Portugal, Mauritius, Spain, Uruguay, and Austria, countries that excel across our six sub-indexes and set the gold ... wikipedia.org EF English Proficiency Index 2024 country rankings ; Netherlands, 636, Very high proficiency ; Norway, 610, Very high proficiency ; Singapore, 609, Very high proficiency ; Sweden, 608, Very ... wikipedia.org City quality of life indices Mercer's Quality of Living Ranking 2024. Rank, City, Country/Region. 1, Zürich. Switzerland. 2, Vienna. Austria. 3, Geneva. Switzerland. 4, Copenhagen. Denmark. mercer.com Cost of Living City Ranking 2024 According to Mercer's 2024 cost-of-living data, Hong Kong, Singapore and Zurich are currently the costliest cities for international workers. numbeo.com Cost of Living Index by City 2025 Mid-Year Larnaca, Cyprus, 52.8. 201, San Jose, Costa Rica, 52.0. 202, Ras al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates, 51.9. 203, Prague, Czech Republic, 51.9. 204, Kingston, ...Read more numbeo.com Cost of Living Index by Country 2025 Costa Rica, 50.1. 34, Cyprus, 49.5. 35, Estonia, 49.4. 36, Trinidad And Tobago, 48.9. 37, Yemen, 48.4. 38, Bahrain, 48.3. 39, Malta, 48.0. 40, Qatar, 47.5. 41 ...Read more numbeo.com Cost of Living Index by City 2025 You are viewing the Cost of Living Index 2025. These indexes are historical and are published periodically, providing a snapshot of the data at a specific point ...Read more numbeo.com Quality of Life Index by Country 2025 Mid-Year Quality of Life Index by Country 2025 Mid-Year. ; 53, Turkey, 134.0 ; 54, Ecuador, 130.8 ; 55, Costa Rica, 130.2 ; 56, Georgia, 129.1.Read more numbeo.com Quality of Life Index by City 2024 Quality of Life Index by City 2024 ; 38, Brisbane, Australia, 169.5 ; 39, Columbus, OH, United States, 169.1 ; 40, Tucson, AZ, United States, 167.0 ; 41, Salt Lake ... numbeo.com Cost of Living Comparison Between Two Countries This tool provides a comprehensive analysis, empowering you to make informed decisions about the financial implications of living in different countries.Read more numbeo.com Numbeo - Cost of living Numbeo is the world's largest cost of living database and a crowdsourced global resource for quality of life data. It provides insights into cost of living, ...Read more visionofhumanity.org Global Peace Index Map » The Most & Least ... Iceland, Ireland, Austria, New Zealand, and Singapore are the top 5 most peaceful countries in the world in 2024. visionofhumanity.org Global Peace Index 2025 This is the 19th edition of the Global Peace Index (GPI), which ranks 163 independent states and territories according to their level of peacefulness, covering ... visionofhumanity.org 10 Most Peaceful Countries in the World – 2024 Sep 20, 2024 — 10. Malaysia crosses into the top ten most peaceful countries in 2024 Global Peace Index. · 9. Slovenia · 8. Denmark · 7. Portugal · 6. Switzerland ... nd.edu Country Index - Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative ND-GAIN Index Country Rankings. Top 5 Countries, Score. 1. Norway. 76.7. 2. Finland ... India is the 104th most ready country and the 59th most vulnerable country ... nd.edu Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative // University of Notre ... Country Index. Free and open source, the ND-GAIN Country Index uses two decades of data across 45 indicators to rank 185 countries annually based upon their ... nd.edu Download Data - Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative Download up to half a million data points for more than 180 UN countries. Data is updated annually, but includes all ND-GAIN indicators across 20+ years. nd.edu ND-GAIN releases latest Country Index update Jun 25, 2025 — The ND-GAIN Country Index ranks 185 nations according to how vulnerable they are to climate change and how prepared they are to deal with climate change's ... nd.edu Vulnerability rankings ND-GAIN measures the overall vulnerability by considering vulnerability in six life-supporting sectors – food, water, health, ecosystem service, human habitat ... nd.edu Country Rankings The ND-GAIN Country Index summarizes a country's vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges in combination with its readiness to improve ... nd.edu ND-GAIN Index ND-GAIN Index Country Rankings. Top 5 Countries, Score. 1. Norway. 76.7. 2. Finland ... India is the 104th most ready country and the 59th most vulnerable country ... worldpopulationreview.com EF English Proficiency Index by Country 2025 The country with the highest score was the Netherlands with 647. The other countries in the top five were Singapore, Austria, Denmark, and Norway. worldpopulationreview.com Safest Countries in the World 2025 Iceland has been the safest country in the world for the 14th year in a row, according to the Global Peace Index. The Nordic countries of Europe (Norway, ... worldpopulationreview.com Best Countries to Retire 2025 Some of the countries that are considered the best places to retire in include Mexico, Portugal, Costa Rica, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, Slovenia ... worldpopulationreview.com Most Expensive Countries to Live In 2025 Cayman Islands, Singapore, Switzerland, Iceland, United States, and the Bahamas appear on both Living Cost's and Numbeo's lists of the most expensive countries ...Read more iasservices.org.uk Best countries to retire in 2025: A Guide | IAS Aug 8, 2025 — Thailand is one of the cheapest countries to retire in without compromising living standards. It attracts thousands of expat retirees because of ... ef.com EF EPI 2024 Mar 28, 2013 — The worldwide level of English proficiency has declined for the fourth year running, with 60% of countries in the index scoring lower this year ... benefitnews.com Vienna, Zurich among 20 cities with the highest quality of life Jan 26, 2024 — Mercer ranked 241 cities across five continents according to quality of life factors like safety, national stability, public services, cultural richness, ... forbes.com The Best Places To Retire Abroad In 2025 Jul 19, 2025 — Here are the top 24 countries, and 96 recommended spots, based on costs, amenities, health care, language, crime, climate risk and whether US retirees are ... studytravel.network EF English Proficiency Index 2024 shows decline in major ... Nov 14, 2024 — The EF English Proficiency Index 2024 is based on the results of 2.1 million EF Standard English Tests taken in 2023 in 116 countries, and is ... internations.org The Cities with the Best (& Worst) Quality of Life Valencia ranks 1st for the Quality of Life Index and 1st overall in the 2024 Expat City Ranking. Four of the index's five subcategories place in the top 5. facebook.com Top 15 Countries with Best Healthcare & Low Cost ... Top 15 Countries with Best Healthcare & Low Cost of Living (2025): • Portugal • Costa Rica • Thailand • Malaysia • Mexico • Panama • Colombia • ...Read more facebook.com The 2024 EF English Proficiency Index (EPI) ranks 116 ... European countries dominate the top tier, with Norway placing second (610), followed closely by Sweden (608), Croatia (607), Portugal (605), and ... facebook.com Retiring abroad might just be the safest decision you ever ... Retiring abroad might just be the safest decision you ever make. ✨ The U.S. now ranks 132nd on the Global Peace Index—while countries ... facebook.com Zurich tops 2024 Mercer quality of living ranking 2. Safe & Clean – Vienna consistently ranks among the safest and cleanest cities in the world. 3. Affordable & High-Quality Healthcare – Austria ... facebook.com EF English Proficiency Index 2024 With moderate proficiency, Hong Kong, India, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and Macau are placed 33rd, 34th, 37th, 38th, 40th, and 41st, ... facebook.com International Living has unveiled its Best Places to Retire in ... Malaysia ranks #7, and Thailand secures #10 among Southeast Asian countries on the list. Here's the Top 10: 1. Panama 2. Portugal ...Read more savvynomad.io 116 Key Expat Statistics for 2025: Where Are People ... Feb 14, 2025 — Top retirement destinations include Spain, Portugal, Panama, Mexico, and Thailand. Aging populations in Western countries are leading more ... instagram.com The EF English Proficiency Index 2024 remains a key ... The Netherlands ranks first, followed by very high proficiency countries like Norway, Sweden, Croatia, Portugal, and Denmark. Germany appears in ... instagram.com Retiring abroad might just be the safest decision you ever ... Retiring abroad might just be the safest decision you ever make. ✨⁠ ⁠ The U.S. now ranks 132nd on the Global Peace Index—while countries ... instagram.com In case you're thinking about moving to another country: ... Mercer's 2024 Quality of Living Report ranks cities for expats, with Zurich as the top choice due to its great public services, low crime, and vibrant culture. indiatimes.com World's top 10 cities offering 'Quality of Life' in 2024 Dec 16, 2024 — European cities dominate the list, with Zurich, Vienna, and Geneva leading the way, praised for safety, healthcare, and culture. germanwatch.org Climate Risk Index 2025 The Climate Risk Index (CRI) ranks countries by the human and economic toll of extreme weather. The latest edition highlights increasing losses. nippon.com Japan Slides Further in English Proficiency Ranking Nov 28, 2024 — EF English Proficiency Ranking for 2024 (Selected Countries). 1, Netherlands. 2, Norway. 3, Singapore. 4, Sweden. 5, Croatia. 6, Portugal. 7 ... yahoo.com These Countries Were Just Named Safer for Retirees Than ... May 27, 2025 — Portugal made the list thanks to its place at No. 7 on the Global Peace Index list and No. 2 on International Living's Global Retirement Index. ef.edu About EF EPI | EF English Proficiency Index The EF English Proficiency Index (EF EPI) is the world's largest ranking of countries/regions by adult English skills. Published annually, the EF EPI is an ... columbia.edu Global Climate Risk Index Ranks 188 Countries by ... Jun 25, 2025 — The Climate Finance Vulnerability Index ranks 188 countries according to both their vulnerability to hazards and their financial resilience. brighttax.com The 14 Best Countries to Retire in 2025 Oct 5, 2025 — Panama has reclaimed the #1 spot in International Living's 2025 Global Retirement Index, praised for its affordable healthcare, Pensionado visa, ... What cost-of-living and taxation factors should an English-speaking, middle-class white-collar consider when choosing a retirement town or country for 2050? ✓ choose locations with sustainably lower cost-of-living indices than current home country, balancing price and service quality ✓ prioritise jurisdictions with favourable pension tax rules and double taxation agreements for pension income ✓ budget for health insurance and long-term care costs alongside everyday expenses ✓ factor currency stability and inflation-hedging options when planning retirement income ✓ consider local goods and services availability rather than headline rental rates ✓ expect regional variations inside a country affecting affordability and lifestyle cost of living = measure of price level for consumer goods, housing, food and services in a place tax treaty = agreement between countries to prevent double taxation on income such as pensions How should healthcare quality and accessibility steer the choice of retirement location by 2050, given ageing needs? ✓ prioritise countries with strong primary care networks and accessible hospitals within reasonable travel time ✓ check presence of specialised geriatric and chronic-disease services in target towns or regions ✓ verify eligibility for public healthcare or cost-effective private insurance for foreign retirees ✓ consider medical tourism infrastructure for elective procedures where safe and regulated ✓ expect telemedicine expansion to improve remote monitoring and continuity of care universal coverage = health system where most people receive healthcare paid or subsidised by government geriatric care = medical and social services specialising in older people and chronic conditions How important is English proficiency and an expat community for quality of life, and which countries show strong English usage now? ✓ favour countries and towns scoring high on English proficiency indices for easier daily life and services ✓ seek established expat enclaves providing social networks, orientation and informal support ✓ check availability of English-language medical and legal services in the locale ✓ value multilingual local populations for cultural engagement while retaining English convenience ✓ expect growing English proficiency in many non-anglophone countries by 2050 driven by education and tech English proficiency index = ranking of countries by population ability in English based on standardised testing and data expat enclave = neighbourhood or town with a concentrated community of foreign residents offering shared language and services What climate and environmental risks should influence the decision for a retirement place in 2050, and how to evaluate long-term resilience? ✓ evaluate ND-GAIN or equivalent indices for vulnerability and readiness to adapt to climate impacts ✓ avoid low-lying coastal towns with projected sea-level rise and increased storm exposure unless strong defences exist ✓ prefer regions with diversified water sources and lower projected heat extremes for older-age comfort ✓ assess local infrastructure investment plans for flood control, heat mitigation and health-service resilience ✓ expect insurers and mortgage lenders to price climate risk into living costs and availability climate vulnerability = degree to which a place is likely to suffer harm from climate hazards adaptive capacity = ability of a country or community to prepare for, respond to and recover from environmental changes ND-GAIN Country Index = tool developed by the University of Notre Dame that measures a country's vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges, along with its readiness to adapt. It provides a ranking for over 180 countries based on a combination of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity) and readiness (ability to leverage investment for adaptation) scores. Higher scores on the index are considered better because they indicate lower vulnerability and higher readiness How should safety and social stability weigh on the choice, and which countries currently score well on peace and public security metrics? ✓ prefer countries with high Global Peace Index rankings for lower risk of organised violence and political instability ✓ research local rates of violent and petty crime in candidate towns rather than national averages ✓ consider social cohesion indicators such as trust, civic services and reliable law enforcement for everyday safety ✓ favour places with transparent governance and low corruption for predictable interactions and legal certainty ✓ expect some urban centres to require local precautions while smaller towns may offer calmer living global peace index = composite ranking of countries by levels of safety, security and ongoing conflict petty crime = minor crimes like pickpocketing or burglary more likely to affect daily life Which European and non-European towns or countries show a balanced mix of affordability, healthcare, English use, safety and climate readiness for a 2050 retiree? ✓ consider Portugal (coastal towns and secondary cities) for affordable healthcare access, high peace ranking and growing expat communities ✓ envisage Malta and Cyprus for English-friendly services, EU standards and compact healthcare systems ✓ consider parts of Canada (Atlantic provinces, smaller cities) for quality healthcare, English usage and low climate vulnerability in many areas ✓ look at Costa Rica for affordable healthcare, stable democracy and strong climate adaptation policies in some provinces ✓ take into account Malaysia (Penang, Ipoh) for lower cost, English usage in services and established expat hubs blended index = combined assessment using cost, healthcare, safety, climate and language measures secondary city = city smaller than the main national capital offering lower costs and good services How should visa, residency rules and pension taxation influence choosing a retirement jurisdiction for 2050? ✓ prioritise countries offering clear long-term retirement visas or residency pathways with healthcare access ✓ check bilateral social-security agreements and pension portability rules affecting pension taxation and benefits ✓ plan for residency requirements that may affect tax residence status and access to public services ✓ seek financial advice on inheritance, capital gains and local tax treatment of foreign pensions ✓ expect some countries to introduce targeted incentives for skilled or wealthy retirees, changing costs and requirements residency permit = legal authorisation to live in a country for an extended period often with rights to work or access services pension portability = ability to receive pension payments and benefits while living abroad without losing entitlements What housing and local-transport considerations will matter for comfortable ageing in place by 2050? ✓ favour towns with accessible housing stock or retrofit programmes for low-step entries, wider doorways and single-floor living ✓ value proximity to reliable public transport, healthcare and shops for reduced car dependence and social inclusion ✓ assess local planning for walkability, benches, shade and safe pedestrian routes for older residents ✓ consider rental flexibility versus ownership given maintenance and mobility changes over time ✓ expect advances in assistive technology and smart-home retrofits to improve independent living age-friendly housing = homes designed or adapted for accessibility and safety as people age transit-oriented = neighbourhoods designed around public transport nodes reducing reliance on private cars 91 cost of living = measure of price level for consumer goods, housing, food and services in a place tax treaty = agreement between countries to prevent double taxation on income such as pensions universal coverage = health system where most people receive healthcare paid or subsidised by government geriatric care = medical and social services specialising in older people and chronic conditions English proficiency index = ranking of countries by population ability in English based on standardised testing and data expat enclave = neighbourhood or town with a concentrated community of foreign residents offering shared language and services climate vulnerability = degree to which a place is likely to suffer harm from climate hazards adaptive capacity = ability of a country or community to prepare for, respond to and recover from environmental changes ND-GAIN Country Index = tool developed by the University of Notre Dame that measures a country's vulnerability to climate change and other global challenges, along with its readiness to adapt. It provides a ranking for over 180 countries based on a combination of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity) and readiness (ability to leverage investment for adaptation) scores. Higher scores on the index are considered better because they indicate lower vulnerability and higher readiness global peace index = composite ranking of countries by levels of safety, security and ongoing conflict petty crime = minor crimes like pickpocketing or burglary more likely to affect daily life blended index = combined assessment using cost, healthcare, safety, climate and language measures secondary city = city smaller than the main national capital offering lower costs and good services residency permit = legal authorisation to live in a country for an extended period often with rights to work or access services pension portability = ability to receive pension payments and benefits while living abroad without losing entitlements age-friendly housing = homes designed or adapted for accessibility and safety as people age transit-oriented = neighbourhoods designed around public transport nodes reducing reliance on private cars 90 20251021 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Manners and etiquette - Improving communication & interpersonal skills Mock interviews By the end of this session you will have studied print Download onto your tablet or print the following pdf for our next lesson. The Business 2.0 Upper Intermediate pg 32 ex 3 memo analysis the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_students_book_pg32-33_meteor_bank.pdf zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> The Business Upper Intermediate 2.0 B2 2 Information technology IT downtime, hardware upgrade, soft skills retraining Collecting feedback, suggesting solutions Conflict management (when sparks fly) Meteor Bank 89 Listening: Assessing upstream feedback active Is the bank growing too fast? to the detriment of older customers? textbook 〆it won't be growing too fast if development is supported by adequate measures → upskilling of staff → investment in staff (...) pg 33 ex 4 listening the_business_mac_millan/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_audio_cd01/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_audio_cd01_042.ogg the_business_mac_millan/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_audio_cd01/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_audio_cd01_043.ogg the_business_mac_millan/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_audio_cd01/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_audio_cd01_044.ogg the_business_mac_millan/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_audio_cd01/the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_audio_cd01_045.ogg T / Cl What is the most important for a bank? ✓ data security & confidentiality → no way to outsource IT to a 3rd party?! pg 33 ex 5 discussion ]]> 88 2 Follow-up active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png What does it take for any company to grow its business? Should anyone be blamed for breaking eggs while making an omelette? ✓ depends on shareholders → answer the questions.]]> How would you expand the bank's business? What stages would you go through? ✓ replace likely obsolete Frankenstein architecture & legacy technologies ✓ temporarily centralise to ensure same procedures & standards are running in all subsidiaries ✓ update hardware progressively to avoid technological disparities in your stack and facilitate maintenance ✓ replicate, make information redundant for increased reliability through a computer grid What do you think were the reasons for recruiting S.Finlay in the first place? ✓ manage the expansion ✓ meet the rising demand for electronic services ≠ outsource IT Could recruiting a European manager be a cultural mistakes? 〆expect no hiring contradiction in team matching despite different work culture → anticipate conflict due to work culture → focus on changing processes & teams progressively without harming core activities What steps should HR undertake if there is significant staff turnover? ✓ exit interviews → find out why employees are leaving → consider retraining or increasing salaries What skills does S.Finlay need to improve? What training does he need? 〆managers & sys admins don't understand S.Finlay's strategy 〆staff members don't understand S.Finlay's strategy → share vision = like many IT gurus, S.Finlay may be less skilled at managing people → improve change management skills → communicate action plans better What are your conclusions? Should S.Finlay be replaced? ✓ give oneself the means to achieve your goals → recruit more experienced staff ✓ S.Finlay needs to improve his communication & interpersonal skills to manage more efficiently → be given both downstream and upstream feedback → be trained in cross-cultural management 87 Role play: Executive committee meeting active textbook Do you want to make sparks fly or mitigate the conflict? ✓ both approaches have pros & cons → try out which suits your style & skills Functional language: Conflict management (when sparks fly) pg 33 ex 6 role play Executive committee meeting ]]> 86 SWOT analysis wip textbook Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats ]]> 85 deliberate = done on purpose rather than by accident; planned malicious = intending or intended to do harm can't make an omelette without breaking (some) eggs = to achieve a certain goal one must sometimes incur damage, experience difficulties, or make sacrifices to the detriment of = at the cost of exhausted = very tired to get rid of sb/sth = to make yourself free of sb/sth that is annoying you or that you do not want; to throw sth away to blame ~ sb/sth (for sth) | ~ sth on sb/sth = to think or say that sb/sth is responsible for sth bad to claim = to say that sth is true although it has not been proved and other people may not believe it; to demand or ask for sth because you believe it is your legal right to own or to have it glitch = (informal) a small problem or fault that stops sth working successfully, e.g. A few technical glitches forced us to postpone the demonstration; sudden irregularity or malfunction (of equipment etc.) demanding = (of a person) expecting a lot of work or attention from others; not easily satisfied 84 the Saul ...to make some sharp harsh decisions ]]> 20251020 18:05-19:00 1.5 active Is Paris still the capital of France? | George Friedman on Putin's NATO Provocations and Poland's Emerging Power By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 83 George Friedman on Putin's NATO Provocations and Poland's Emerging Power active wip edit_ol_qa prep_ol_qa pix/icons8-movie-100_white.png Is Putin provoking NATO by entering its airspace or is he just bluffing? George Friedman on Putin's NATO Provocations and Poland's Emerging Power 23 Sept 2025 Already this month, Russia has violated the airspace of three NATO countries: Estonia, Romania and Poland - twice. What is Russian President Vladimir Putin trying to achieve with these bold moves, and what impact might they have on Ukraine negotiations? GPF Chairman George Friedman joined host Christian Smith to discuss the latest geopolitical developments in the region as well as outline his forecast for Poland's evolution from his 2009 book, The Next 100 Years. Visit www.geopoliticalfutures.com for world-class geopolitical analysis and discussion. There you'll also find George's new series on the 2020s and Its Historic Shift, including his updated forecast for Poland, Turkey and Japan. 0:00 Introduction 1:43 Russian violates NATO airspace 7:47 Ukraine war negotiations 13:24 Poland's evolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hya3dMD_eOE → watch the video → answer the questions]]> Hello and welcome to this podcast from Geopolitical Futures. I'm Christian Smith. In the past fortnight, Russian military aircraft entered the airspace of Estonia, Romania, and Poland, all NATO countries. The provocations, for that is what they're being called by NATO leaders, come after negotiations on an end to the war in Ukraine have slowed and after the US had just offered Poland more military assistance should it want it. 36 years on from the fall of the Berlin Wall, Poland itself has become one of the most significant NATO members and may soon become a member of the G20, the group of the world's largest economies. Poland's emergence as a major regional power was forecast by geopolitical futures chairman and founder George Freriedman in his best-selling book, The Next 100 Years. So today we are joined by George to discuss what Russia's incursions into Poland, Estonia, and Romania mean, and the role that Poland may play in the future of Europe. George, welcome. Uh, look, let's start. I mean, do you agree that these were deliberate provocations into NATO airspace? And has Putin done anything like this before? Well, any one of them could have been a Russian violates NATO airspace navigation error, something like that. Three of them in roughly the same period of time was obviously intended. What was it intended to do? Well, the Russians have a major problem. After three years of the war, they've only occupied 20% of uh Ukraine. This is a failure. At this this means that it's going to be very difficult for them to negotiate an end to the war because after that Putin would have to answer to the Russian public and he does have to do that why he spent so many lives and so much money and failed in this war. So the Russians can't reach a settlement on these terms. They just can't do it. At the same time, they can't take on NATO. If they couldn't take Ukraine, they can't take NATO. So they have to make gestures, threatening gestures to try to split Europe. Okay? So in frightening the polls, the polls then turn to NATO to do something. The French may not want to do it. The Germans may not want to do it. But the point is at this point in history trying to break NATO apart to show them to be a failing entity is one strategy by the Russians. But we must always keep in mind that Putin cannot apparently end the war because he'd have to be answerable for his failure to wage war for over 3 years and not achieve his goals. And so when they flow over this is a signal to various people that this might be spreading the war. Now having failed completely in Ukraine, they're not in a position to spread the war. On the other hand, if they can convince NATO that they would, perhaps they'd be more frightened, more divided, and so on. I mean, I suppose I suppose, so you're sort of suggesting that the justification, the reason for doing this is to is to divide NATO, is to to show weaknesses in NATO. I mean, does he really do you really think he thinks that will work or is he does he perhaps not know? Is he is as some people are saying, is he trying to see what actually might they do? He doesn't have many cards to play. Putin must project an image of tremendous military power when in fact the facts are such that this military power is quite limited. by carrying out these intrusions. One, they're pretty meaningless. It's no big deal. Secondly, it indicates that he is willing to extend the war dramatically. Okay? And thirdly, he hopes that NATO is not united, that the article that says a war attack on one is attack on everyone could crumble. But frankly, he has very few good options. I mean, he is in a very difficult position as Lyndon Johnson was when the Vietnam War didn't go well and he couldn't end it because then he have to admit that he failed. So, this is a situation that in the world is not abnormal or unusual. So in fact I see this as a way to signal that he's more powerful than he is or under these circumstances one of the best solutions is to convince the other side you're crazy. You know the the I don't mean that as a joke really that you are so pressed against the wall that you would commit acts that would be irrational. So the idea that he will go to war with Poland is impossible unless he takes Ukraine. I can't get there from here. But if he indicates that he is being so pressed so far against the wall that he might do something radical, then he has radical options. He's already spoken of tactical nuclear weapons and stuff like that occasion. Then perhaps he can frighten them, divide them, and so on. And so I read it that way, not as a navigation error, but a way to show that he is powerful, potentially reckless without ever actually taking a significant action. I mean there was a really interesting article written I think by one of uh one of geopolitical futures analysts uh last week or the week before about this in particular where they were sort of drawing comparisons with the cold war where often you know talks matter less or public statements matter less than action you know and and this of course is happening in light of Ukraine negotiations or the lack thereof now in in some ways I Do you think that's quite similar that just like the Cold War where where you know a bomber group flying close to the Russian or US airspace was more of a signal than actual talks? Well, I think that's part of it. Uh talk is cheap and what you say really doesn't matter. But in fact, the intrusions to your airspace as an act of showing his intent is really weak. I mean, they didn't penetrate deep. They didn't engage enemy fighters. They didn't bomb anything. They just kind of wandered into the edge of the other countries. So when you take a look at this, if this was meant as a signal of Russian aggressiveness, okay, it was a pretty weak signal, Ukraine war negotiations but certainly the Russians would want the West in general to feel that if they are mistreated by them, they are capable of engaging in what I'll call irrational actions, going to war with NATO. In fact, the Russians have been very cautious not to go to war with NATO. They've been very limited in their military power in terms of the war. So, the last thing you want to do before you negotiate these things is to look weak. From my point of view, this is the weakest thing you could do. You know, flying into airspace then going home. But a doesn't have many options. So I see this as an attempt to show that Russia is not forced to end the war that is prepared to expand the war instead and give him better negotiating stance. But I think the truth of the matter is that given the geography of things, you really can't imagine a a Russian assault on Poland for example. You can't reach them. So looking it this way, I regard this as a form of negotiation. In negotiation, the most important thing you can do is stand up and say, "Well, I'm leaving these negotiations. I'm going to go do it." And that happens in every negotiation. But the objective fact is that Russia after 3 and 1/2 years in the war about uh controls only 20% of uh Ukraine. If they can't take Ukraine, they're not going to take on NATO. So, what does it mean for those negotiations then? I mean, some commentators have suggested that it won't be or hasn't been taken well by Trump, for example, who or or by the Europeans who would have taken it badly anyway, but who might look at it and say this shows a lack of willingness to compromise or to or to settle the war. Do you think that's fair? Do you think it's going to have any impact on the negotiations? Well, I mean it's very clear that Putin cannot end the war on this basis and survive politically in Russia. He read Laria into a war. He failed to win it and did very poorly. And to negotiate an end to the war under these circumstances really makes him looking incompetent. This should not have been a war that was started in the first place. So when you look at it from the Russian point of view, well, this is about as good as they they've thrown everything into the game that they have and this is all they've gotten. When you look at it from Putin's point of view, aside from the Russian national point of view, from the Russian national point of view, okay, it's over. We move on. From Putin's point of view, there's no moving on from this point. So I see it and I've consistently said this and you know it is the fact that Putin could not deliver Ukraine on a platter after three and a half years shows that he miscalculated from the beginning. And so I think this has more to do with internal politics in Russia, which are very hard to fathom and how they work because it's not clear. But it has to do with doing the least he could do, the less dangerous thing he could do to show that he could be very aggressive. In fact, I think it was underwhelming in all ways. Minor intrusions in the airspace was not a dangerous thing. overflight by mass bombers. That might have been interesting, but not this. Let's let's have a look at from the European point of view then. I mean, a few weeks ago on this podcast, we talked about India and and Trump's targeting of India with sanctions ostensibly for uh its purchase of Russian oil and as a way of getting it to stop doing that. The EU last week uh decided that it was going to up its sanctions on Russian energy. I mean, that's still there's still a timeline for that. Europe continues to be reliant on Russian gas in particular as well as as well as oil. I mean, why is why is the EU not moving faster to cut this off given the consequences it would then have for Russia? Well, the EU is not a military force and there's no such thing as a European country. It is simply a group of independent countries with very different views on many things joined together. But when we talk about Europe as a single entity, well, the position of Poland is very different than the position of France. And the British have a different view of everything as well. So it's important not to think of it as Europe. Poland has become a significant country and it has a very different view of this war than the French or the British have. Okay. So rather than talking about what Europe thinks, we have to talk about what different European countries think about this. For the countries to the west, uh that doesn't mean all that much. Okay? for Poland, it's a fundamental reality that it has to deal with. So rather than talking about Europe as if it was a single entity, we have to parse it between the various countries. Poland's evolution Well, let's let's have a look at Poland now, I think, because this that's really what we want to talk about in particular on this podcast. George, you're sort of going through the process of revisiting a number of the forecasts you made in your book uh the next 100 years which was released about 15 16 17 years ago now in the late naughties. Um I mean talk us through your forecast on Poland from then. I mean Poland's come a long way since 1989. Well, I argued that Poland as well as Turkey and Japan would emerge as major powers. The idea at that time of Poland becoming a major power was laughed out of court hilariously. Uh that was not possible. But what I saw in Poland was the single country that was facing the Russians that placed them in a position that none of the other European countries were placed in except possibly Romania. That placed them in a position where they could not stay the way they were. Many of the European countries are very conservative in their evolutions and so on and so forth. They can remain where they were and manages quite well. The Poles saw themselves as in a desperately poor position and therefore I think I thought at the time that they would have to emerge as major power. Now we see Poland as about to become a member of the G20, the 20 largest economies in the world and also having the third largest military force in NATO after only the United States and Turkey. So Poland has emerged as a major military power because it had to and it could not become a major military power if it didn't have a significant economy. So nations do what they desperately have to do. And this is why I say we can't talk about Europe because the Polish position and the French position are very different. The French have very little at stake. the polls have everything at stake and on that basis you can kind of predict what they're going to at least try to do and my read on Poland was they'd managed to do it. I want to ask about Poland's geography because that as you know the word geopolitics suggests has a significant amount to do with things. I mean obviously people would look at the map and say well Poland is next to Barus and um uh the the Baltic countries and and has historically been next to Russia. But I mean it's not just that simple in terms of where it is on the map. There's more to the geography that matters there. Well, where you are on the map actually has some significance. So the probability of a Russian invasion of NATO was always minimal. The Russian army, we tended to overestimate its capabilities. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian army kind of weakened itself. So the Poles could not assume that the Russians were weak. They did not have that luxury. If they had taken Ukraine, they would have been on the B border of Poland. And therefore for the Poles the Ukrainian war meant something very different than for the rest of Europe. That geography is important because when that war began if it had ended as if everybody expected with a Russian victory in months taking this minor country Ukraine uh much weaker than it is then the Poles would be in a existentially dangerous position as with the Baltics and so on. Uh so when we look at that do we have to really take a look at a very different psychology all through Europe and Pol's position where it was was significant. A victory in Ukraine, first of all, would have put the Russians right on the border of Poland and might have led them to believe that they might be capable of going further further west. And so the Poles behaved very differently and the rest of the Europeans definitely had very strong statements. They made very powerful misstatements but their ability to rev up their economies, make a major military force and so on those were there and were needed. So geography matters and I mean the north European plane as well in particular I mean Poland has been somewhere where the biggest wars in the past 200 years have been fought. I mean it's not just Russia that has that memory. It's Poland as well. Well, we have to remember in World War II, it began with an invasion simultaneously by the Germans and the Russians of Poland. Remember that Hitler had made a pact with Stalin, a non-aggression pact, which agreed on two things. One, on the division of Poland. Two, a promise that they wouldn't attack each other. Germans broke that promise. But on the other hand, you have to understand that between Germany and Poland and Russia, Poland was the pivot. Whoever controlled Poland was now in a position to threaten the other country. Their solution was to divide Poland in half and then their two armies were facing each other. So Poland was both a guarantor of peace between Russia and Western Europe and a guaranter of peace in Russia from Germany. First you had to get through it. When they divided it, they were right together and therefore the wars could start. So Poland serves a very important purpose in Europe. Not intentionally, just happens to be there. It is the buffer. Before the Germans can take the Russians, they must have Poland. Before the Russians can take or even dream of taking Western Europe, they have to have Poland. So Poland is a pivot between Russia and Western Europe. And had the misfortune just like Ukraine in many ways of of being where that pivot was well where those tensions were fought out. I mean, in many ways, that's part of its desire to grow economically and militarily in the past 30 years since it gained its independence from the Soviet Union. I mean, how has it managed to do that? First, a great deal of discipline. When you're sitting on the firing line, you tend to put aside the transient problems and really focus in on the fundamental things. Secondly, their growth really returned them to the place they should should have in Europe. In other words, under Soviet control, their ability to develop was limited, extreme. Once the Soviets left, it was what we call sometimes a dead cat bounce. If you throw a dead cat down hard enough, it'll bounce. and the polls had been thrown way down and they bounced. So in a sense Ukraine had become the Poland of this era. It was the buffer between the two. The Russians wanted to take that buffer and end up in the on Polish border. They failed. The Americans didn't want the Russians to be on the Polish border, but they also didn't want to get involved in war and the various European powers were all over the place until recently. So we have to understand that geography does matter in the sense that when you look at the t at the map the cold war was a very different war because Soviet power was in the middle of Germany. They held East Germany and Poland everything else. Now they're much further east and that worries them because they were invaded by Napoleon Bonapart. They were invaded by the Germans and both them got nearly to Moscow and were destroyed by the Russian winter, not by the Russian army. The Soviets have a legitimate fear of Western Europe because they've been historically almost destroyed by them. On the other hand, Western Europe has a real fear of the Russians that they want to move as far west as they can to have buffers. And so what you have here is a very logical progression of geopolitics. And when we personalize it, oh, you know, Putin is an evil man, Trump is a crazy man. Macron is a boring man. All all of these things that we might say. Uh it's not about that. It is really about the imperatives nations have. And Poland had the imperative to become a significant military power. without that economic growth it could not become that. So it did the things that it had to do in order to survive because on the other side of it was Germany which they had no trust. So that it emerged as it did is logical predictable. I mean, I mean, looking at their military for a second, they now have the third largest military in NATO after the US and Turkey, um, I mean, they would obviously worry Russia if a conflict broke out in some way, but I mean, would they be a match for them now? Well, on the attack, no. One thing that has been proven by a man as brilliant as Napoleon Bonapart and by a man as ruthless as Adolf Hitler. You cannot conquer Russia. It is too vast. It has too much of a population that is willing to fight to defend itself. It's very cold in the winter. And these are all fundamental things that were learned. No one in his right mind or that studies history at all is going to invade Russia. Russia, on the other hand, did not invade Europe. It beat back the Germans and finally got in line. It was farther west than it could really support. Okay. So, when you look at the logistics of it and the amount of troops that had to be there, it was a difficult thing. Uh, but the idea that Poland would be a threat to Russia, if Nazi Germany couldn't be a threat to Russia, if Napoleon Bonapart couldn't be a threat to Russia, Poland's not going to be a threat. So, the Russians, however, also look at it another way. Yes, Napoleon Bonapart was not a threat to its survival. Yes, Hitler wasn't a threat to Russia, but it was devastating. Those wars were devastating to Russia and perhaps put them generations behind of what the economic growth could have been. So from the Russian point of view, finally defeating the enemy is at a very high price. So when they look at the West, they have a reasonable reason to say, "I don't know what you're going to do, but if you do the worst case scenario," which frequently happens to us, you're a threat. On the other hand, if you're a threat, I want to go as far west as I can. So this is an old story. Remember always that as I said Hitler signed a non a mutual agreement not to attack each other a mutual agreement to divide Poland among themselves and then double cross the Russians. Russians do not trust easily. So they don't look at the Western Europe and say you guys you know we'll never do that. They have to do worst case scenario. Well, I mean obviously in the past well 80 years um Poland has has developed a well or sorry not the past 80 years the past 30 years 35 years Poland has developed a an important relationship with the US both economically and militarily. I mean what's the state of that now? There's been a few mixed messages out of Washington particularly since Trump took over but even more generally. Well Trump has been consistent in his support of Poland. Well, during his first presidency, he went to Poland uh increased aid to Poland militarily, sent tanks and so on. The polls wanted once they were serious to call it Fort Trump I should say. He they wanted to give it this name and of course he refused. But Trump has a different relationship with Poland than he does with the rest of Europe. He understands fully that Trump is strategic country. He has promised to send more troops. We already have a thousand troops in there. I think even more than that. But um he's promised to send more. He understands that Poland is the pivot. The Europeans also understand that Poland is a pivot and they're quite happy to have the Americans arming them. the extent to which they're prepared to go to war in Ukraine is limited and certainly not with Poland. So in in this case when you look at it, you Americans have a deeper interest in Poland or put it this way, they're acting on it as if they had a deeper interest in it than the Europeans do. I mean, do you we obviously saw a few weeks ago uh the US say it was going to draw down some of its funding of uh those countries on on Russia's flank uh militarily. That is um you you don't see the same thing happening with Poland. Well, what I'm saying is that Trump feed says things. Trump is very much trying to get Putin to accept the reality that he's in and he's prepared to get him some concessions frankly to make it more politically possible for him to make a peace. So when you see Trump being more accommodating with Putin, he's trying to create a framework and I'm not sure he can do it in which Putin can make the peace and not appear to have won nothing. The problem is that he can't give them as much as they need, which is a much larger piece of Ukraine. And so when you look at Trump, it appears that he has an inconsistent policy. In fact, it's consistent. He wants to end the war in Ukraine. He does not want the Americans to be sending troops to Ukraine. He does not want the Russians advance. What he realizes is that Putin can't afford personally to make that peace. And he's constantly making gestures toward him to make it appear, but insignificant gestures really. It can make it appear to make it appear that he's not simply capitulating. What I think with Trump and the Americans generally understand is that Putin cannot capitulate. He cannot survive if he capitulates. And they're trying to give him a parachute to land. And Putin is trying to take advantage of this. But in fact, he doesn't have the capacity militarily to do that. He's still bogged down fighting in a very narrow sphere, but he has to demonstrate that he's still a massive power. Sending drones over Ukraine and then back into over Poland, I should say, and back into Ukraine, uh, is not very significant. So, all of these things that the Russians are doing are aimed at showing how strong they are. But when you look at them carefully, they're minimal actions. I mean looking back to to Poland and its relationship I suppose with the rest of Europe now. I mean specifically the the the the major powers Germany, France, the UK. I mean it's it is extraordinary to look at Poland and how it's grown in the past few decades. I mean it's it's predicted now that well on some predictions that Poland might have a GDP per capita that's larger than the UK's by the end of the decade. I mean, do you think it is now seen in that same way by Germany, France, and the UK that it is just as significant a player or that it will be as them? I think that Europeans take a long time to discover reality. Uh, it's a very traditionalist and Poland was simply a weak link in this region. Okay. to be able to evolve and recognize that Poland has the largest milit one of the largest militaries in NATO. Okay. To recognize them as the most one of the most dynamic economies in Europe is very difficult to do. We get used to certain things. It would like seeing Mexico suddenly evolve as a great power. It would be very difficult for the Americans to make that transition. I don't know that the European governments have absorbed the fact of the shift in the center of power in Western Europe. I don't even think they think of Poland as part of Western Europe. They see it as Islamic country. So I think geopolitics changes faster than the opinions of those around it. It takes a long while to take them seriously. But I think Europe at this point understands one thing. If Poland falls, well, Germany's next. So in that sense, they have a mixed view. One, Poland must be strong. But is it respected? Well, is it seen as a real powerful European country? Not yet. that will come in time. Interesting. I mean to finish off I want to look at what role it could play in a potential peace in Ukraine. I mean and that may be one of the turning points that that changes attitudes. I mean Ukraine, sorry, Poland rather obviously geographically is pivotal, but I mean what role do you think it could have? Could it be could it play a role that would make the difference between the war going on and peace? There's two ways of wars end. One is for the Russians to keep what they've had, agree to a peace based on those borders and so on. The second is a more radical thing which is the idea of and the Russians have mentioned this that they never want to see NATO forces inside Ukraine. They don't want to see American forces out of Ukraine. We don't want to see the Russian forces inside of Ukraine. The other thing is to turn Ukraine into a neutral country with no forces in there. In that case, if it was not divided in half, that would be terrible because then Western armies and Russian armies would be in the same position as they were during the Cold War face to face to fold the gap. Um, if that was a neutralized country, then if either of the Russians or the West decided to move in, there'd be ample warning. You don't mount an invasion without being noticed. And second, there'd be plenty of time for each kind each side to enter and turn Ukraine into a battleground. Well, the Russians don't want to fight a battle with the West in Ukraine. The West does not want to fight a battle with Russia in Ukraine. So, one end to this war could be a neutralized Ukraine under the governance of Kiev, not allowed to have a major military force of its own. But with the Poles sitting on one side and the Russians on the other side, if either one moves, both move. In this case, if this would be the settlement, and I don't know if there will be, but if this would be the settlement, then the Europeans desperately need a powerful Poland, and they will have to contribute to making it powerful. Then it becomes critical. I I don't think this will happen, and yet I don't see any other solution. In other words, I don't see the Russians ending this war with what little they gained. I don't see the Ukrainians capitulating to them or needing to capitulate to them. And so if you want to end this war, you want to give Russia what it wanted initially, a buffer zone, and you want to keep Russia away from Poland, creating a neutral zone with a minimal military force and no foreign power involved in it is one way it happens. It's a very reasonable solution and hence it's probably unlikely because reasonable solutions are hard to find. But when you think about it at that point Poland really becomes central and Poland will be able to demand much more of the Europeans. And at this point, this is is really something that I think Putin put on the table when he said there can be no foreign forces in Ukraine. He didn't mention Russian forces, but on the other hand, that was clearly an option. It would take be very hard, I think, for the Europeans to accept Ukraine as a buffer zone. But still, it's might be one one way to end it. I mean, I suppose the question then would be that the how would the government in Ukraine be run and that sort of thing. Would it be would it be independent? I mean, it reminds me a lot of uh Belgium in the 19th century after Napoleon and how it was used as a sort of buffer state between France and Germany. I mean, I suppose in many ways that didn't work out very well. Um, is is that a fair comparison, do you think, or or is is that just one of many times in history that this has been done? Well, I mean it it's a very logical solution. The Russians actually started the war because I have fear. They were afraid that Ukraine would join NATO and the NATO armies would then be around 300 miles away from Moscow. And you say, well, they knew they NATO would ever invade. They also knew Hitler wouldn't invade. They their history is one of betrayal. And so they look at it this way. On the other side of the equation, the farther away the Russians are from Western Europe, the safer Western Europe is. So if you created a neutral buffer zone, which I think is a reasonable solution, but not one I necessarily expect to emerge, um it would really stabilize the situation fundamentally. Would the Ukrainians able to do everything but create a massive army? They'd be in charge of internal affairs. Would the Russians respect this? Well, would the Poles respect it? You know, so it balances each other out. So it's one way the war can end. All wars end. The question is how does it end from the internal politics of each country? Mhm. This could work. Man, if Ukraine would accept it, of course. I I I mean quickly looking at uh away from Poland and and the other countries bordering Ukraine in this scenario. I mean Hungary in particular, which obviously George you know a lot about. I mean how would they be involved in this do you think? Would they be involved? Well, they're not involved now. They're marginal and the Ukrainians really don't have choice because to the extent that they've been able to resist, it's been dependent on American intelligence, weapons, weapons from Europe and so on and so forth. Okay? So Ukraine without that could not defend itself. So to be brutal, they don't have an option. On the other hand, this may be a way for Putin to claim, "I won the war. We're not going to get NATO at our borders." As for the Europeans, it gives them a sense of security because they know that if Russia enters Ukraine, the polls will go in either side. It's much better to have a wide butter buffer zone than a line drawn in a country because then there's warning of of attack and that makes attacks much less likely. And what about that the Hungarians and and say the Romanians as well. Well, they're Hungarians and Romanians and historically they were not relevant to the balance of power in Europe. So it these are smaller countries. One of the realities of Europe is that they have very small countries and even their biggest countries like Germany and France are very small compared to Asia, Western Hemisphere and so on. And that makes wars really brutal because there's they've got to fight like a devil to hold on to what they have. So when we consider the size of the European countries and go back in history, the brutal wars they waged against each other in various ways, it was a question of size. Russia has a different problem. It has to pay a lot if it's invaded, but ultimately he can defeat the invader just by space and weather. Well, George, thanks very much for coming on the podcast as always. Now, if you want to read any of George's writings about Poland and its rise, as well as about Turkey and Japan, two countries George has also forecast on, uh, you can go to geopolitical futures.com. But for now, thanks very much for listening. You take care and goodbye. Bye. Do you believe in a navigation error? Why / why not? 〆three in roughly the same period can't have been an error ✓ must have been intended → need to find out why ✓ probably destabilise & create fear among NATO members What does Putin need to negotiate without losing face? 〆Russia has only occupied 20% of Ukraine after 3 years → Putin will be held accountable ✓ should be in a position to justify to the Russian public casualties, financial consequences of sanctions, etc ✓ needs to negotiate an end to the war where he appears victorious ✓ project an image of tremendous military power ✓ carry intrusions - even though meaningless ✓ indicate Putin is willing to extend the war dramatically ✓ put to test the article that says a war attack on one is attack on everyone could crumble → divide NATO → navigation errors are just a show of power to enter negotiations in a stronger position Why would Putin suggest he doesn't need a truce to end the war? ✓ if he can't win, he will appear to have lost it → under pressure to end ✓ Putin suggests that he doesn't need a deal, but actually bluffing e.g. US couldn't win in Vietnam (though not lost) - had to decide how long to continue What is the most important thing one can do in negotiations? ✓ stand up and say: "Well, I'm leaving these negotiations. I'm going to go do it" ≠ lack of willingness to compromise or to settle the war = bluff, pretending to be aggressive So nations do what they desperately have to do. Why is the role to play by Poland so important?]]> = single country facing the Russians → could not stay the way they are 〆many European countries are very conservative in their evolutions i.e. can remain where they were and manage quite well 〆Poles see themselves in a desperately poor position → has to emerge as a major power ✓ about to become a member of the G20 (the 20 largest economies in the world) ✓ the third largest military force in NATO (after only the United States and Turkey) Why is the role of Poland more useful as a buffer than a territory divided in two between Germany and Russia? How is this relevant to Ukraine? 〆during WW2, whoever controlled Poland was in a position to threaten the other country → divided Poland in half → both armies were facing each other → wars could start ✓ pivotal role as a buffer → before the Germans can take the Russians, they must have Poland → before the Russians can take the Germans, they must have Poland ✓ Ukraine has to play the role Poland used to have as a buffer → Poland less likely to be occupied? Dead cat bounce?]]> ✓ temporary recovery in share prices after a substantial fall, caused by speculators buying in order to cover their positions = metaphor from the notion that even a dead cat will bounce when it falls from a great enough height → when Soviets left, Poland had to recover Why is reciprocal fear legitimate? Why is not justified? ✓ the USSR used to occupy East Germany and Poland but now the RF is much further east ✓ Russia was invaded by Napoleon Bonaparte, Germans during WW2 → Russia has been historically almost destroyed ✓ Western Europe fears Russians who want to move as far west as they can to have buffers ✓ Central European countries still remember the Cold War ✓ both Bonaparte & Hitler couldn't conquer Russia → vast territories, challenging climate, substantial population → nobody has ever invaded Russia in history ✓ Poland couldn't be a threat to Russia either ✓ Russia has never invaded Europe either I don't know what you're going to do, but if you do the worst case scenario, which frequently happens to us, you're a threat.]]> = what Russians may say when they look at the West → Russians do not trust easily ✓ need to have buffer zones What kind of parachute is Trump trying to provide Putin with? ✓ Trump understands Putin cannot capitulate → being more accommodating with Putin (than most Europeans?) ✓ creating a framework where Putin doesn't appear to have won nothing ! accept the reality he's in → make it more politically possible to make peace ✓ Trump prepared to make some concessions ! can't give everything Russia expects, i.e. larger piece of Ukraine ✓ doesn't want American troops in Ukraine What could end the war? 〆Russians not ending this war with what little they gained 〆Ukrainians not capitulating or needing to capitulate yet ✓ give Russia what it wanted initially, a buffer zone ✓ keep Russia away from Poland ✓ create a neutral zone with a minimal military force ✓ ensure no foreign power is involved → Poland becomes central → able to demand much more of the Europeans 82 dead cat bounce = temporary recovery in share prices after a substantial fall, caused by speculators buying in order to cover their positions. Metaphor from the notion that even a dead cat will bounce when it falls from a great enough height 81 is has been living in Amsterdam for 20 years I want to feel some lightness ease when speaking Russians are keen in on English pubs I was hoping that I got would get | would be given the visa for more than 10 days ]]> 20251013 18:05-19:00 1.5 active From GDP to soft power: what makes a nation a global force By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 80 1 From GDP to soft power: what makes a nation a global force active wip edit_short_reading_floating prep_short_reading_floating pix/icons8-reading-100_white.png How do GDP and purchasing power interact to shape global influence? ✓ GDP shows economic output ✓ purchasing power reveals domestic consumption capacity ✓ countries like China and the USA use high GDPs to fund military and innovation ✓ nations with strong purchasing power sustain middle-class stability and export growth ✓ imbalanced economies risk inflation and inequality ✓ long-term power depends on balancing both measures Why do governance quality and institutional resilience remain critical to long-term superpower potential? ✓ stable governance attracts investors and ensure consistent policies ✓ institutional resilience protects systems during crises or leadership changes ✓ EU states and the USA demonstrate strong institutions despite political disputes ✓ weak governance leads to corruption and social unrest ✓ credibility in diplomacy depends on stability and transparency In what ways do soft power and trade balance complement military and technological strength? ✓ soft power increases cultural attraction and diplomatic trust ✓ trade balance reflects economic competitiveness and production capacity ✓ military and technology require allies and markets supported by soft power ✓ China, India, and the EU use trade diplomacy to build global networks → balanced power depends on economic, cultural, and security influence together From GDP to soft power: what makes a nation a global force 1. Measuring Power: 8 Key Indicators Defining Superpower Potential 2. From GDP to Soft Power: What Makes a Nation a Global Force 3. The Geopolitical Equation: Understanding Indicators of Superpower Status 20251014
economic output = total value of all goods and services produced in an economy within a period purchasing power = amount of goods and services that can be bought with a unit of currency defence capability = ability of a state to protect itself and its interests through armed forces deterrence = strategy to prevent hostile actions by showing potential strength or retaliation demographic dividend = economic growth potential resulting from a large working-age population ageing population = increasing share of older people in a society leading to fewer workers human capital = skills, knowledge, and experience possessed by individuals contributing to economic value innovation capacity = ability to develop new ideas, technologies, or products efficiently energy independence = condition in which a country meets its energy needs without importing resources resource security = assurance of reliable access to essential natural materials digital infrastructure = physical and software systems enabling internet, communication, and data services artificial intelligence = technology allowing machines to simulate human intelligence processes governance quality = effectiveness of government institutions and public administration institutional resilience = ability of political and social systems to withstand crises without collapse soft power = ability to influence others through culture, diplomacy, or values rather than force trade balance = difference between a nation’s exports and imports value
79 2 Measuring Power: 8 Key Indicators Defining Superpower Potential active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png What makes a country a superpower? How does GDP help to assess a nation’s power and influence on the global stage? ✓ measures total economic output of a nation and indicate its overall productivity ✓ compares countries’ wealth and capacity to fund global influence ✓ China and the USA show highest GDPs, demonstrating capacity to invest in infrastructure and defence ✓ India increases GDP through services and manufacturing 〆small economies like Portugal or Jordan compete globally ✓ purchasing power parity (PPP) reflects real domestic buying strength ✓ Eurozone maintains high GDP per capita but slower growth rates economic output = total value of all goods and services produced in an economy within a period purchasing power = amount of goods and services that can be bought with a unit of currency PPP = purchasing power parity Why is military expenditure considered a strong indicator of superpower potential? ✓ indicates capacity to project power beyond borders ✓ USA maintains largest defence budget, ensuring global presence ✓ Russia uses high military spending relative to GDP to sustain influence ✓ China now modernizes armed forces rapidly ✓ NATO members cooperate through collective defence 〆countries with low defence budgets can't defend extensive territories ✓ deterrence discourages aggression from rivals defence capability = ability of a state to protect itself and its interests through armed forces deterrence = strategy to prevent hostile actions by showing potential strength or retaliation How can population size and demographics shape a country’s superpower potential? ✓ large population provides workforce and market demand ✓ India benefits from demographic dividend as young workforce grows ✓ China faces challenges from ageing population despite economic scale ✓ Europe and Japan experience shrinking labour forces ✓ Middle Eastern countries now managing rapid youth growth 〆low population growth doesn't ensure long-term economic dynamism → migration should balance demographic shifts demographic dividend = economic growth potential resulting from a large working-age population ageing population = increasing share of older people in a society leading to fewer workers How does education level influence a nation’s geopolitical strength? ✓ strengthens human capital and competitiveness ✓ countries like South Korea and Finland achieve excellence in education systems ✓ USA and China invests in research and universities ✓ India develops tech talent in global IT sectors 〆poor educational access doesn't support advanced industries ✓ innovation capacity depends on quality of education and R&D ✓ Europe maintains skilled labour despite ageing demographics human capital = skills, knowledge, and experience possessed by individuals contributing to economic value innovation capacity = ability to develop new ideas, technologies, or products efficiently In what way does energy production and natural resources availability determine geopolitical power? ✓ energy independence reduces vulnerability to external shocks ✓ Russia and Saudi Arabia use oil and gas exports as leverage ✓ USA has becomes a leading energy producer through shale revolution ✓ China now investing abroad to secure energy supplies 〆resource-poor countries like Japan shouldn't rely fully on imports ✓ renewable energy now becoming a new arena for power competition ✓ Europe diversifies energy sources after 2022 crises energy independence = condition in which a country meets its energy needs without importing resources resource security = assurance of reliable access to essential natural materials How does technological advancement contribute to a nation’s influence? ✓ technological superiority enhances productivity and defence systems ✓ USA and China lead in artificial intelligence development ✓ Europe focuses on regulation and data privacy ✓ India now expanding digital infrastructure to integrate rural populations 〆technologically lagging states can't shape digital governance norms ✓ digital infrastructure enables faster economic integration → tech innovation defines 21st-century geopolitics digital infrastructure = physical and software systems enabling internet, communication, and data services artificial intelligence = technology allowing machines to simulate human intelligence processes How does political stability influence a country’s rise or decline in global power? ✓ attracts investment and long-term planning ✓ European Union members maintain strong governance quality ✓ USA shows institutional resilience despite internal polarization ✓ China ensures stability through centralized governance 〆frequent coups or corruption won't encourage sustainable growth ✓ Middle Eastern reforms aim at governance modernization ✓ institutional resilience sustains global credibility governance quality = effectiveness of government institutions and public administration institutional resilience = ability of political and social systems to withstand crises without collapse Why do global trade and diplomacy matter when evaluating superpower status? ✓ global trade expands influence through interdependence ✓ USA and China competing in trade and technology markets ✓ European Union acts as major economic bloc with diplomatic reach ✓ India increases exports in services and pharmaceuticals ✓ soft power promotes culture, values, and alliances 〆isolationist policies don't enhance global leadership ✓ trade balance reflects competitiveness and currency strength soft power = ability to influence others through culture, diplomacy, or values rather than force trade balance = difference between a nation’s exports and imports value 78 3 The next hundred years active wip edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png To what extent can geopolitics help predict the future? The next 100 years Summary 2009 speculative non-fiction book by George Friedman In the book, Friedman attempts to predict the major geopolitical events and trends of the 21st century. Friedman also speculates in the book on changes in technology and culture that may take place during this period. Friedman predicts that the United States will remain the dominant global superpower throughout the 21st century and that the history of the 21st century will consist mainly of attempts by other world powers to challenge US dominance. Although mainly about the geopolitics and wars of the century, the book also makes some economic, social, and technological predictions for the 21st century. Second Cold War In the 2010s, the conflict between the US and Islamic fundamentalists will die down, and a second Cold War, less extensive and shorter than the first, will take place between the United States and Russia. It will be characterized by Russian attempts to expand its sphere of influence into Central and Eastern Europe, coupled with a buildup of Russian military capabilities. During this period, Russia's military will pose a regional challenge to the United States. The United States will become a close ally to some Central and Eastern European countries, all of whom will be dedicated to resisting Russian geopolitical threats during this period. Friedman speculates in the book that the United States will probably become a close ally of some Central and Eastern European countries: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. Around 2015, a Polish-led military alliance of countries in Central and Eastern Europe will begin to form, which is referred to in the book as the "Polish Bloc." Russian and Chinese fragmentation In the early 2020s, the New Cold War will end when the economic strain and political pressure on Russia, coupled with high military spending, Russia's declining population, and poor infrastructure, cause the federal government of Russia to completely collapse, much like the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Other former Soviet countries will fragment as well. Around this time, China will politically and culturally fragment as well. The book asserts that the rapid economic development of China since 1980 will cause internal pressures and inequalities in Chinese society. Regional tension in mainland China will grow between the prosperous coastal regions and the impoverished interior regions. Friedman gives two possible scenarios: that the Chinese central government will expel outside interests and rule with an iron fist to keep the country together, or that China will fragment, with the central government gradually losing much of its real power and the provinces becoming increasingly autonomous. He works on the assumption that fragmentation is the most likely scenario. In the 2020s, the collapse of the Russian government and the fragmentation of mainland China will leave Eurasia in general chaos. Other powers will then move in to annex or establish spheres of influence in the area, and in many cases, regional leaders will secede. In Russia, North Caucasus and other Muslim regions, as well as the Pacific Far East will become independent, Finland will annex Karelia, Romania will annex Moldova, Tibet will gain independence with help from India, Taiwan will extend its influence into mainland China, while the United States, European powers, and Japan will re-create regional spheres of influence in mainland China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_100_Years%3A_A_Forecast_for_the_21st_Century ]]> Cultures live in one of three states. The first state is barbarism. Barbarians believe that the customs of their village are the laws of nature and that anyone who doesn't live the way they live is beneath contempt and requiring redemption or destruction. The third state is decadence. Decadents cynically believe that nothing is better than anything else. If they hold anyone in contempt, it is those who believe in anything. Nothing is worth fighting for. Civilization is the second and most rare state. George Friedman The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century ]]> decadent /ˈdekədənt / = having or showing low standards, especially moral ones, and an interest only in pleasure and enjoyment rather than serious things redemption = act of saving or state of being saved from the power of evil Do you believe in a New Cold War? In retrospect, what steps do you understand now the Russian government may have taken to avoid fragmentation of the Russian Federation? Is Eurasia still likely to follow the scenario predicted by G.Friedman? Why / why not? 77 economic output = total value of all goods and services produced in an economy within a period purchasing power = amount of goods and services that can be bought with a unit of currency defence capability = ability of a state to protect itself and its interests through armed forces deterrence = strategy to prevent hostile actions by showing potential strength or retaliation demographic dividend = economic growth potential resulting from a large working-age population ageing population = increasing share of older people in a society leading to fewer workers human capital = skills, knowledge, and experience possessed by individuals contributing to economic value innovation capacity = ability to develop new ideas, technologies, or products efficiently energy independence = condition in which a country meets its energy needs without importing resources resource security = assurance of reliable access to essential natural materials digital infrastructure = physical and software systems enabling internet, communication, and data services artificial intelligence = technology allowing machines to simulate human intelligence processes governance quality = effectiveness of government institutions and public administration institutional resilience = ability of political and social systems to withstand crises without collapse soft power = ability to influence others through culture, diplomacy, or values rather than force trade balance = difference between a nation’s exports and imports value 76 20251010 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Cost of Living Comparison Mock interviews By the end of this session you will have studied print Download onto your tablet or print the following pdf for our next lesson. The Business 2.0 Upper Intermediate pg 32 ex 3 memo analysis the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_students_book_pg32-33_meteor_bank.pdf zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 75 Cost of Living Comparison active textbook https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Germany&country2=Russia&city1=Berlin&city2=Moscow&tracking=getDispatchComparison Cost of Living Comparison Between Berlin and Belgrade Indices Difference Info Cost of Living in Belgrade is 32.3% lower than in Berlin (excluding rent) Cost of Living Including Rent in Belgrade is 35.0% lower than in Berlin Rent Prices in Belgrade are 41.7% lower than in Berlin Restaurant Prices in Belgrade are 23.4% lower than in Berlin Groceries Prices in Belgrade are 33.9% lower than in Berlin Local Purchasing Power in Belgrade is 48.3% lower than in Berlin You would need around 3,444.5€ (403,499.9Дин) in Belgrade to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 5,300.0€ in Berlin (assuming you rent in both cities). This calculation uses our Cost of Living Plus Rent Index to compare the cost of living and assume net earnings (after income tax) https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Germany&country2=Serbia&city1=Berlin&city2=Belgrade&tracking=getDispatchComparison ]]> 74 73 would will travel to... (1st conditional)]]> 20251003 16:05-17:00 1.5 active Rising star makes sparks fly Manners and etiquette - Improving communication & interpersonal skills Mock interviews By the end of this session you will have studied print Download onto your tablet or print the following pdf for our next lesson. The Business 2.0 Upper Intermediate pg 32 ex 2 reading Rising star makes sparks fly pg 32 ex 3 memo analysis the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_students_book_pg32-33_meteor_bank.pdf zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> The Business Upper Intermediate 2.0 B2 2 Information technology IT downtime, hardware upgrade, soft skills retraining Collecting feedback, suggesting solutions Conflict management (when sparks fly) Meteor Bank 72 1 Lead in active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png Why do employees change jobs? Why is it probably a negative sign? When and why would experienced staff resign? ✓ disagreement with hierarchy ✓ resistance to change ✓ better work opportunities from the competition ✓ weaker motivation & stamina than younger staff members to resign = to officially tell sb that you are leaving your job, an organization, etc stamina /ˈstæmɪnə/ = physical or mental strength that enables you to do sth difficult for long periods of time What knowledge management and/or security issues are likely when experienced staff leave a company? 〆increase of disrupted projects ← personnel who are both key and irreplaceable contribute to the bus factor (losing a replaceable or non-key person would not result in a bus-factor effect) 〆customer dissatisfaction (due to lack of personalised service) 〆delays in delivery 〆longer work hours bus factor = minimum number of team members that have to suddenly disappear from a project before the project stalls due to lack of knowledgeable or competent personnel. The expression "hit by a bus" describes a person either dying or more generally disappearing suddenly from the project; measurement of the risk resulting from information and capabilities not being shared among team members What kind of manager & set of skills are needed when rejuvenating a company's workflow? ✓ a manager with determination that is not offending other people ✓ being result oriented in a way that is not working against employees' workflow = making younger staff members more dynamic is probably not so challenging → focus on diplomacy with senior staff to rejuvenate = to make young again 71 Case study - Meteor bank active textbook What kind of person is a rising star? ✓ ambitious ✓ determined ✓ workaholic? Such a rising star will make changes that are probably easy - or difficult - to put in place? ✓ probably generate resistance → make sparks fly to make sparks fly = to increase risks of a dispute, to clash Lexical material: Staff turnover, restructuring, downtime pg 32 ex 1 discussion pg 32 ex 2 reading Rising star makes sparks fly At what point could the attrition rate threaten a company? ✓ avoid over 15% of staff leaving at the same time → endanger technological legacy & stability → consider making elder staff redundant only once transformational changes have been achieved ]]> 70 Memo analysis active textbook What kind of language do you use to make a career, to make promises & show you are ambitious? ✓ assertive → use modal verbs such as 'will' rather than 'would' pg 32 ex 3 memo analysis T / Cl Which tense is more appropriate? S.Finlay [is going to drag | will drag] the IT dept kicking & screaming into the 21st century ✓ will drag = future simple → promise ]]> 69 20210630-1227 Arrangements, plans, promises and intentions active decks deck_of_phrases_future_arrangements_plans_promises_intentions.csv 68 20190418-1837 Future forms active decks deck_of_phrases_future_forms.csv 67 Mindmap: Talking about the future active textbook future forms mindmap
future_forms_mindmap.pdf ]]> 66 to resign = to officially tell sb that you are leaving your job, an organization, etc bus factor = minimum number of team members that have to suddenly disappear from a project before the project stalls due to lack of knowledgeable or competent personnel. The expression "hit by a bus" describes a person either dying or more generally disappearing suddenly from the project; measurement of the risk resulting from information and capabilities not being shared among team members turnover = rate at which employees leave a company and are replaced by other people job rotation = practice of changing staff at frequent intervals by discharges and substitutions teething = small problems that a company, product, system, etc. has at the beginning to irritate = to annoy sb, especially by sth you continuously do or by sth that continuously happens to make sparks fly = to increase risks of a dispute, to clash lenient = not as strict as expected when punishing sb or when making sure that rules are obeyed to drag = to pull sb/sth along with effort and difficulty to rejuvenate = to make young again to beat about the bush = to talk a lot, but avoid directly addressing the most important point attrition rate = percentage of employees or customers who leave an organization over a specific period. It measures the pace of employee turnover and is a key metric for human resources to assess retention strategies and workforce health deliberate = done on purpose rather than by accident; planned malicious = intending or intended to do harm can't make an omelette without breaking (some) eggs = to achieve a certain goal one must sometimes incur damage, experience difficulties, or make sacrifices to the detriment of = at the cost of exhausted = very tired to get rid of sb/sth = to make yourself free of sb/sth that is annoying you or that you do not want; to throw sth away to blame ~ sb/sth (for sth) | ~ sth on sb/sth = to think or say that sb/sth is responsible for sth bad to claim = to say that sth is true although it has not been proved and other people may not believe it; to demand or ask for sth because you believe it is your legal right to own or to have it glitch = (informal) a small problem or fault that stops sth working successfully, e.g. A few technical glitches forced us to postpone the demonstration; sudden irregularity or malfunction (of equipment etc.) demanding = (of a person) expecting a lot of work or attention from others; not easily satisfied 65 myself as a star ]]> 20251001 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Are future societies more likely to be governed as democracies or soft authoritarian regimes? By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 64 1 Democratic futures: why institutions, data governance and EU regulation favour democracy over soft authoritarianism? active wip edit_short_reading_floating prep_short_reading_floating pix/icons8-reading-100_white.png Is democracy indeed a better governance strategy than soft authoritarianism? What examples from the European Union demonstrate how economic regulation supports democracy over soft authoritarianism? ✓ to apply state aid control to stop unfair subsidies and preserve competition across member states ✓ to enforce single market rules ensuring free movement of goods, services, people and capital ✓ to regulate digital platforms and prevent monopolistic capture by enforcing competition law 〆to permit selective subsidies without prior EU commission approval ✓ to combine industrial policy with transparency requirements and green transition goals state aid control = EU rules requiring member states to notify and justify selective public financial support to firms before implementation single market enforcement = application of EU law and procedures to ensure free movement of goods, services, people and capital across member states How does data governance affect whether societies remain democratic or shift toward soft authoritarianism? ✓ to enforce GDPR-style consent and transparency obligations in data governance ✓ to regulate platform accountability through the digital services act with risk management duties ✓ to promote independent oversight by data protection authorities across member states 〆to permit unchecked surveillance capitalism without safeguards for users ✓ to use portability and interoperability rules to enable privacy-preserving innovation GDPR = general data protection regulation, legal framework adopted by the European Union in 2016 and enforced since 2018 setting rules for collecting, storing and processing personal data of individuals. Regulation applies to all organisations inside the eu and also to foreign firms offering goods or services to EU residents. Principles include consent, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimisation, accuracy, security and accountability. Rights include access, correction, erasure, portability and objection to processing data governance = rules and practices for collecting, storing, sharing and using personal and non-personal data surveillance capitalism = economic model based on monetising personal data and behavioural prediction What safeguards can prevent soft authoritarian drift within European institutions? ✓ to secure judicial independence with transparent appointments and sufficient funding ✓ to strengthen rule of law monitoring with annual reports and conditionality on eu funds ✓ to empower civil society organisations and public broadcasters for pluralism ✓ to use conditionality mechanisms linking financial transfers to compliance with governance benchmarks 〆to rely only on political negotiations without enforceable legal tools judicial independence = capacity of courts to decide cases impartially, free from political pressure rule of law monitoring = systematic assessment of judicial systems, media pluralism, anti-corruption frameworks and checks and balances Democratic futures: why institutions, data governance and EU regulation favour democracy over soft authoritarianism (1) Democratic futures: why institutions, data governance and EU regulation favour democracy over soft authoritarianism (2) safeguarding pluralism: economic policy, platform rules and rule of law as defences against soft authoritarian drift (3) resilience blueprint: lessons from eu state aid, gdpr and the dsa for democratic stability) 20251001
democratic resilience = capacity of political institutions and society to withstand shocks and preserve democratic procedures and civil liberties social safety net = government programmes providing income support, health care, unemployment benefits and services to reduce poverty and risk data governance = rules and practices for collecting, storing, sharing and using personal and non-personal data surveillance capitalism = economic model based on monetising personal data and behavioural prediction state aid control = EU rules requiring member states to notify and justify selective public financial support to firms before implementation single market enforcement = application of EU law and procedures to ensure free movement of goods, services, people and capital across member states Gini coefficient = statistical measure of income or wealth inequality where higher values indicate greater inequality unemployment shock = sudden and sustained rise in joblessness caused by economic downturns, structural change or crises emergency powers = legal authorities granted to government or bodies to act quickly in crises, often with expanded powers and accelerated procedures crisis mechanism = defined process and criteria for activating exceptional measures, including oversight and time limits demographic ageing = rising share of older people in the population, affecting pensions, health care and labour supply social integration = processes and policies that help migrants and minorities participate economically, socially and politically intermediary liability = legal responsibilities of online intermediaries for third-party content and obligations to remove illegal content platform accountability = framework requiring platforms to identify, mitigate and report systemic risks and impacts of their services judicial independence = capacity of courts to decide cases impartially, free from political pressure rule of law monitoring = systematic assessment of judicial systems, media pluralism, anti-corruption frameworks and checks and balances
63 2 Follow-up active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png Which social and economic trends will most strongly push future societies toward democracy rather than soft authoritarianism? ✓ to strengthen civic institutions through wider education and civic participation ✓ to expand social safety nets to reduce economic insecurity and political radicalisation ✓ to diversify media ecosystems to maintain information pluralism ✓ to coordinate fiscal and social policy to lower inequality and boost social mobility ✓ to reinforce independent judiciaries and electoral integrity to keep checks and balances ✓ to support labour market policies for job creation and reskilling in digital economies democratic resilience = capacity of political institutions and society to withstand shocks and preserve democratic procedures and civil liberties social safety net = government programmes providing income support, health care, unemployment benefits and services to reduce poverty and risk How will digital surveillance and data governance influence whether states become more democratic or softly authoritarian? ✓ to regulate personal data use under strong transparency and consent rules as exemplified by GDPR ✓ to require platform accountability and risk management to limit opaque automated decisions 〆to allow unchecked mass surveillance without judicial oversight or meaningful remedy ✓ to enable privacy-preserving innovation through data portability and interoperability ✓ to promote independent data protection authorities to enforce rules and handle complaints data governance = rules and practices for collecting, storing, sharing and using personal and non-personal data surveillance capitalism = economic model based on monetising personal data and behavioural prediction What economic policies and market regulations in the european union point toward democratic governance rather than soft authoritarian control? ✓ to apply state aid control and prior notification procedures to prevent unfair national subsidies and preserve competition ✓ to enforce single market rules to protect cross-border trade and limit capture by national elites ✓ to use competition policy to rein in dominant digital platforms and protect small firms ✓ to update industrial guidelines to allow targeted green investments while maintaining transparency and proportionality 〆to permit secretive industrial bailouts without commission oversight state aid control = EU rules requiring member states to notify and justify selective public financial support to firms before implementation single market enforcement = application of EU law and procedures to ensure free movement of goods, services, people and capital across member states Can economic crises and inequality make soft authoritarianism more likely, and what measurable indicators should we watch? ✓ to monitor rising Gini coefficient and widening wealth gaps as predictors of political stress ✓ to track prolonged unemployment shocks and loss of labour force participation after recessions ✓ to observe falling real wages and shrinking middle-class consumption as a catalyst for anti-democratic appeals ✓ to measure erosion of public trust in institutions through repeated opinion surveys and turnout decline 〆to assume short-term GDP dips alone will inevitably produce authoritarian shifts without interaction with political institutions Gini coefficient = statistical measure of income or wealth inequality where higher values indicate greater inequality unemployment shock = sudden and sustained rise in joblessness caused by economic downturns, structural change or crises What role will the European Union’s crisis mechanisms and emergency rules play in steering governance outcomes? ✓ to enable temporary emergency measures that target disinformation and illegal online content under the digital services act when activated ✓ to require procedural safeguards and sunset clauses to avoid permanent concentration of powers ✓ to involve member-state representatives and independent oversight in crisis activation and review 〆to normalise open-ended emergency powers without clear limits and judicial review ✓ to couple emergency interventions with communications transparency and accountability reporting emergency powers = legal authorities granted to government or bodies to act quickly in crises, often with expanded powers and accelerated procedures crisis mechanism = defined process and criteria for activating exceptional measures, including oversight and time limits How will demographic change and migration shape pressure toward democracy or soft authoritarianism in european contexts? ✓ to manage demographic ageing with active labour policies and targeted migration to sustain public finances ✓ to design integration programmes to foster social cohesion and reduce cultural polarisation ✓ to use evidence-based allocation of welfare and services to avoid perceived zero-sum competition 〆to treat migration as only a security problem without economic or social policy responses ✓ to monitor regional demographic divergence to tailor local governance and investment demographic ageing = rising share of older people in the population, affecting pensions, health care and labour supply social integration = processes and policies that help migrants and minorities participate economically, socially and politically Will technological platforms and misinformation increase the chance of soft authoritarian practices, and what regulation examples from the eu matter? ✓ to impose intermediary liability rules and content risk assessments on platforms under the DSA to limit harmful flows of information ✓ to mandate transparency reporting and third-party audits for large online platforms ✓ to require algorithmic explainability and options for users to contest automated moderation decisions 〆to let major platforms self-regulate without enforceable transparency and sanctions ✓ to coordinate cross-border enforcement among data protection and competition authorities intermediary liability = legal responsibilities of online intermediaries for third-party content and obligations to remove illegal content platform accountability = framework requiring platforms to identify, mitigate and report systemic risks and impacts of their services Which institutional safeguards are most effective at preventing soft authoritarian drift, especially within eu law and practice? ✓ to maintain judicial independence through secured budgets, transparent appointments and complaint procedures ✓ to implement rule of law monitoring and annual reporting to detect early democratic erosion ✓ to link EU funding and conditionality to compliance with fundamental rights and governance benchmarks ✓ to empower civil society and public broadcasters to preserve pluralism and watchdog functions 〆to rely solely on political bargaining without legal enforcement or clear conditionality judicial independence = capacity of courts to decide cases impartially, free from political pressure rule of law monitoring = systematic assessment of judicial systems, media pluralism, anti-corruption frameworks and checks and balances 62 democratic resilience = capacity of political institutions and society to withstand shocks and preserve democratic procedures and civil liberties social safety net = government programmes providing income support, health care, unemployment benefits and services to reduce poverty and risk data governance = rules and practices for collecting, storing, sharing and using personal and non-personal data surveillance capitalism = economic model based on monetising personal data and behavioural prediction state aid control = EU rules requiring member states to notify and justify selective public financial support to firms before implementation single market enforcement = application of EU law and procedures to ensure free movement of goods, services, people and capital across member states Gini coefficient = statistical measure of income or wealth inequality where higher values indicate greater inequality unemployment shock = sudden and sustained rise in joblessness caused by economic downturns, structural change or crises emergency powers = legal authorities granted to government or bodies to act quickly in crises, often with expanded powers and accelerated procedures crisis mechanism = defined process and criteria for activating exceptional measures, including oversight and time limits demographic ageing = rising share of older people in the population, affecting pensions, health care and labour supply social integration = processes and policies that help migrants and minorities participate economically, socially and politically intermediary liability = legal responsibilities of online intermediaries for third-party content and obligations to remove illegal content platform accountability = framework requiring platforms to identify, mitigate and report systemic risks and impacts of their services judicial independence = capacity of courts to decide cases impartially, free from political pressure rule of law monitoring = systematic assessment of judicial systems, media pluralism, anti-corruption frameworks and checks and balances 61 will leave, I will have... ]]> 20250929 18:35-19:30 1.5 active The liberty of one citizen ends where the liberty of another citizen begins - V.Hugo By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 60 2 The liberty of one citizen ends where the liberty of another citizen begins - V.Hugo active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png How do the principles of freedom depend on the local culture? What did Victor Hugo mean by “The liberty of one citizen ends where the liberty of another citizen begins"? Is this more true of life in Europe, the US, Russia, or Asia? Why? Why Not? Ask questions to elicit answers to the questions above. Suggest answers to these eliciting questions. Use the same formatting rules as above. Is European welfare crippled by John Stuart Mill's harm principle? Ask 3 questions to elicit the answer to the topic above. Suggest answers to these 3 eliciting questions. Use the same formatting rules as above. What did Victor Hugo mean by saying “The liberty of one citizen ends where the liberty of another citizen begins”? ✓ to stress balance between individual freedom and collective order ✓ to underline that rights are not absolute but relational ✓ to frame liberty as requiring mutual respect and responsibility ✓ to prevent dominance of one person’s freedom over another’s dignity ✓ to define boundaries through law and social norms 〆to allow limitless personal autonomy without regard for others mutual respect = recognition of others’ rights, dignity, and interests as equal to one’s own, creating conditions for peaceful coexistence; it requires self-restraint, empathy, and willingness to compromise in order to protect fairness and harmony in society relational liberty = concept that individual freedom exists only in relation to the freedom of others, meaning that one’s actions must be limited when they begin to infringe upon another person’s equal rights; it links autonomy with responsibility Is Hugo’s principle more visible in European societies compared to the US, Russia, or Asia? ✓ to embed the principle in European welfare and rights frameworks ✓ to emphasise community balance over absolute autonomy ✓ integrated into EU legal systems protecting minority rights ✓ to contrast with US focus on individual liberty and self-reliance ✓ to highlight weaker enforcement in Russia due to state dominance ✓ to show diversity in Asia, blending collective harmony with hierarchy collective balance = equilibrium achieved when individual liberties are weighed against the common good, ensuring that personal choices do not undermine societal stability or equity rights framework = legal and institutional structures through which societies guarantee fundamental freedoms and responsibilities, often codified in constitutions, charters, or treaties, and enforceable through courts Why might this principle not hold equally across Europe, the US, Russia, and Asia? ✓ to reflect cultural differences in interpreting liberty and duty ✓ to show US preference for negative liberty over social responsibility ✓ to note Russian prioritisation of state power over individual rights ✓ to illustrate Asian traditions valuing harmony and group consensus ✓ to underline Europe’s tendency to balance freedom with solidarity 〆to assume universal uniformity of liberty across all regions negative liberty = absence of external interference or coercion in individual choices, emphasised in liberal traditions, particularly in the United States; it focuses on personal independence from authority rather than on collective obligations coercion = action of making sb do sth that they do not want to do, using force or threatening to use force solidarity = principle of unity and mutual support within a society, where individuals accept certain limits on their own freedom in order to strengthen protection, equity, and cohesion for all members How does John Stuart Mill's harm principle challenge the scope of collective welfare policies in Europe? ✓ to limit state intervention strictly to preventing harm to others ✓ interpreted as undermining redistribution for purely self-regarding needs ✓ to raise debates about freedom of choice versus compulsory solidarity ✓ to weaken legitimacy of welfare schemes if perceived as paternalistic ✓ to trigger tension between liberal individualism and social safety nets 〆to justify unrestricted expansion of welfare without considering liberty costs harm principle = liberal doctrine formulated by philosopher John Stuart Mill, stating that power may be rightfully exercised over individuals only to prevent harm to others, not to restrict self-regarding actions; it emphasises personal liberty, autonomy, and responsibility, and questions whether state-imposed welfare policies risk overstepping individual freedom welfare state = system in which the government assumes primary responsibility for the well-being of citizens through programmes such as healthcare, education, pensions, and unemployment benefits; its aim is to reduce inequality, provide safety nets, and ensure basic living standards, but it often raises debates over costs, efficiency, and liberty In what ways can the harm principle be reconciled with European commitments to solidarity and redistribution? ✓ to interpret welfare as preventing harm caused by poverty and exclusion ✓ to frame redistribution as protection against structural disadvantages ✓ to link welfare rights with safeguarding social cohesion and stability ✓ supported by moral arguments seeing neglect as indirect harm ✓ to redefine freedom as including capability to flourish, not only non-interference 〆to assume welfare obligations contradict liberty by definition social solidarity = sense of mutual responsibility and support among members of society, underpinning welfare policies; it emphasises interdependence and collective resilience, ensuring that risks such as illness, unemployment, or old age are shared rather than borne individually capabilities approach = framework developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, focusing on expanding individuals’ actual opportunities and freedoms to achieve valued life outcomes; it shifts attention from mere resources to the real ability of people to function and flourish Could strict adherence to the harm principle risk weakening Europe’s welfare model in the long run? ✓ to erode political justification for taxation aimed at redistribution ✓ used to question compulsory insurance and pension schemes ✓ to increase inequality if welfare is restricted only to harm-prevention cases ✓ to undermine legitimacy of universal benefits such as education and healthcare ✓ to weaken trust in collective institutions as guarantors of fairness 〆to sustain welfare stability without reinterpreting individual liberty norms redistribution = reallocation of income, wealth, or resources by the state through mechanisms such as taxation, social transfers, and public services; its purpose is to reduce inequality, promote fairness, and protect vulnerable groups, but it is often contested on grounds of efficiency and personal freedom universal benefits = welfare provisions, such as healthcare or education, granted to all citizens regardless of income or contribution; designed to ensure equality of access and social cohesion, they avoid stigma but may face criticism for cost and potential overreach 59 mutual respect = recognition of others’ rights, dignity, and interests as equal to one’s own, creating conditions for peaceful coexistence; it requires self-restraint, empathy, and willingness to compromise in order to protect fairness and harmony in society relational liberty = concept that individual freedom exists only in relation to the freedom of others, meaning that one’s actions must be limited when they begin to infringe upon another person’s equal rights; it links autonomy with responsibility collective balance = equilibrium achieved when individual liberties are weighed against the common good, ensuring that personal choices do not undermine societal stability or equity rights framework = legal and institutional structures through which societies guarantee fundamental freedoms and responsibilities, often codified in constitutions, charters, or treaties, and enforceable through courts negative liberty = absence of external interference or coercion in individual choices, emphasised in liberal traditions, particularly in the United States; it focuses on personal independence from authority rather than on collective obligations coercion = action of making sb do sth that they do not want to do, using force or threatening to use force solidarity = principle of unity and mutual support within a society, where individuals accept certain limits on their own freedom in order to strengthen protection, equity, and cohesion for all members harm principle = liberal doctrine formulated by philosopher John Stuart Mill, stating that power may be rightfully exercised over individuals only to prevent harm to others, not to restrict self-regarding actions; it emphasises personal liberty, autonomy, and responsibility, and questions whether state-imposed welfare policies risk overstepping individual freedom welfare state = system in which the government assumes primary responsibility for the well-being of citizens through programmes such as healthcare, education, pensions, and unemployment benefits; its aim is to reduce inequality, provide safety nets, and ensure basic living standards, but it often raises debates over costs, efficiency, and liberty social solidarity = sense of mutual responsibility and support among members of society, underpinning welfare policies; it emphasises interdependence and collective resilience, ensuring that risks such as illness, unemployment, or old age are shared rather than borne individually capabilities approach = framework developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, focusing on expanding individuals’ actual opportunities and freedoms to achieve valued life outcomes; it shifts attention from mere resources to the real ability of people to function and flourish redistribution = reallocation of income, wealth, or resources by the state through mechanisms such as taxation, social transfers, and public services; its purpose is to reduce inequality, promote fairness, and protect vulnerable groups, but it is often contested on grounds of efficiency and personal freedom universal benefits = welfare provisions, such as healthcare or education, granted to all citizens regardless of income or contribution; designed to ensure equality of access and social cohesion, they avoid stigma but may face criticism for cost and potential overreach 58 rules Commandments ]]> 20250926 16:05-17:00 1.5 active Comparing Europe, the US, Russia, and Asia through the lens of relational liberty By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 57 1 Comparing Europe, the US, Russia, and Asia through the lens of relational liberty active wip edit_short_reading_floating prep_short_reading_floating pix/icons8-reading-100_white.png What is meant by relational liberty in Hugo’s principle? ✓ to show freedom exists in relation to others’ freedoms ✓ to limit actions when they harm equal rights ✓ to link autonomy with responsibility 〆to grant absolute independence without restriction How does Europe apply Hugo’s principle differently from the US? ✓ to embed it in the rights framework and minority protection ✓ to balance freedom with solidarity ✓ to contrast with the US focus on negative liberty 〆to rely solely on individual autonomy without collective balance Why do cultural differences affect how Hugo’s idea is applied worldwide? ✓ to reflect varied traditions of liberty and duty ✓ to highlight Russia’s focus on state dominance ✓ to show Asia’s emphasis on harmony and group consensus ✓ to illustrate Europe’s integration of collective balance 〆to assume identical interpretations of liberty everywhere Comparing Europe, the US, Russia, and Asia through the lens of relational liberty 1. liberty, responsibility, and society: why Victor Hugo’s principle matters across regions 2. comparing Europe, the US, Russia, and Asia through the lens of relational liberty 3. freedom, solidarity, and cultural contrasts in interpreting Victor Hugo’s idea of liberty 20250929
mutual respect = recognition of others’ rights, dignity, and interests as equal to one’s own, creating conditions for peaceful coexistence; it requires self-restraint, empathy, and willingness to compromise in order to protect fairness and harmony in society relational liberty = the concept that individual freedom exists only in relation to the freedom of others, meaning that one’s actions must be limited when they begin to infringe upon another person’s equal rights; it links autonomy with responsibility collective balance = the equilibrium achieved when individual liberties are weighed against the common good, ensuring that personal choices do not undermine societal stability or equity rights framework = the legal and institutional structures through which societies guarantee fundamental freedoms and responsibilities, often codified in constitutions, charters, or treaties, and enforceable through courts negative liberty = the absence of external interference or coercion in individual choices, emphasised in liberal traditions, particularly in the United States; it focuses on personal independence from authority rather than on collective obligations solidarity = the principle of unity and mutual support within a society, where individuals accept certain limits on their own freedom in order to strengthen protection, equity, and cohesion for all members
56 mutual respect = recognition of others’ rights, dignity, and interests as equal to one’s own, creating conditions for peaceful coexistence; it requires self-restraint, empathy, and willingness to compromise in order to protect fairness and harmony in society relational liberty = the concept that individual freedom exists only in relation to the freedom of others, meaning that one’s actions must be limited when they begin to infringe upon another person’s equal rights; it links autonomy with responsibility collective balance = the equilibrium achieved when individual liberties are weighed against the common good, ensuring that personal choices do not undermine societal stability or equity rights framework = the legal and institutional structures through which societies guarantee fundamental freedoms and responsibilities, often codified in constitutions, charters, or treaties, and enforceable through courts negative liberty = the absence of external interference or coercion in individual choices, emphasised in liberal traditions, particularly in the United States; it focuses on personal independence from authority rather than on collective obligations solidarity = the principle of unity and mutual support within a society, where individuals accept certain limits on their own freedom in order to strengthen protection, equity, and cohesion for all members 55 20250924 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Audio video streaming vs post-production needs By the end of this session you will have studied print Download onto your tablet or print the following pdf for our next lesson. The Business 2.0 Upper Intermediate pg 32 ex 2 reading Rising star makes sparks fly pg 32 ex 3 memo analysis the_business_upper_intermediate_2_0_students_book_pg32-33_meteor_bank.pdf zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 54 OBS for streaming, not for recording... active textbook 53 Capturing video content from a hidden window & VNC solution active textbook When a workspace is "nonactive" (not shown), the windows it contains are all unmapped. The applications aren't getting expose events and therefore they aren't actually drawing anything (If an application draws a tree in a forest that isn't displayed anywhere, does the tree really exist?) https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/264542/record-screencast-on-nonactive-workspace T / Cl How can you capture a window which is not drawn? tigervncserver -geometry 1366x705 -depth 32 -localhost :2 -xstartup /usr/bin/chromium vncviewer localhost:5902 ffmpeg -s 1366x705 -framerate 25 -f x11grab -i :2.0 -f mp4 -vcodec libx264 -preset ultrafast test.mp4 ffmpeg -f pulse -i default -c:a pcm_s16le -s 1366x705 -framerate 25 -f x11grab -i :2.0 -f mp4 -vcodec libx264 -preset ultrafast 20241215_vnc_zoom_ffmpeg_test01.mp4 vncserver -list vncserver -kill :2 T / Cl How can you record video from all screens or a single (virtual) screen? ffmpeg -f pulse -i default -c:a pcm_s16le -s 1366x705 -framerate 25 -f x11grab -i :1.0 -f mp4 -vcodec libx264 -preset ultrafast 20241216_vnc_zoom_ffmpeg_test01.mp4 ✓ records video from both :1 and :2 ✓ records audio from both :1 and :2 ffmpeg -f pulse -i default -c:a pcm_s16le -s 1366x705 -framerate 25 -f x11grab -i :2.0 -f mp4 -vcodec libx264 -preset ultrafast 20241216_vnc_zoom_ffmpeg_test02_display2.mp4 ✓ records video from only :2 ✓ records audio from both :1 and :2 ]]> 52 Capturing content from webcam active textbook ffmpeg -f pulse -i default -c:a pcm_s16le -itsoffset 0.7 -f v4l2 -framerate 30 -s 800x600 -input_format yuyv422 -i /dev/video0 -preset faster out.mkv ✓ sync (except v.beginning & end of file) ffmpeg -f pulse -i default -c:a pcm_s16le -itsoffset 0.7 -f v4l2 -framerate 30 -s 800x600 -input_format yuyv422 -i /dev/video0 -f mp4 -vcodec libx264 -preset ultrafast $filename ]]> 51 Capturing raw audio streams for post production active textbook pw-cli ls Node | grep Focusrite -B 8 pw-record --target 167 20250204_pw-record_host.mp4 pw-record --target 166 20250204_pw-record_zoom.mp4 Recommended: → record a backup track monitoring all sources for syncing in post production ffmpeg -f alsa -i default -c:a pcm_s16le -s 1366x705 -framerate 25 -f x11grab -i :2.0 -f mp4 -vcodec libx264 -preset ultrafast 20250204_ffmpeg_vnc_w_audio.mp4 ffmpeg -f alsa -i default -c:a pcm_s16le -thread_queue_size 32 -s 1366x705 -framerate 25 -f x11grab -i :2.0 -f mp4 -vcodec libx264 -preset ultrafast 20250206_ffmpeg_vnc_w_audio02.mp4 ]]> 50 49 20250922 14:35-15:30 1.5 active Obstacles to transformational leadership By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> 48 1 Obstacles to transformational leadership active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png What obstacles to make transformations could you as a leader face in a company with employees who have been working 20 years? Why could a European work life balance hamper a company's growth? ✓ to face slower product cycles when strict limits on overtime delay delivery ✓ to struggle scaling operations quickly without flexible weekend or late-night shifts ✓ to cope with higher labour costs when overtime premiums and leave entitlements rise ✓ to lose competitiveness against regions with longer working weeks and fewer restrictions ✓ been limited by rigid labour laws preventing rapid hiring or flexible contracts ✓ to risk reduced investor confidence if growth metrics lag peers outside Europe 〆to rely on unlimited working hours without negative impact on retention work-life balance = equilibrium between professional responsibilities and personal life, often maintained by limiting working hours, guaranteeing paid leave, and supporting family-friendly policies; while it improves well-being, productivity, and retention, it can also challenge rapid scaling, as companies may face restricted flexibility and higher labour costs compared to markets with fewer protections labour market rigidity = presence of strict regulations governing hiring, firing, contracts, and working hours; rigid markets can protect employees but may reduce a company’s ability to adjust quickly to demand, adopt new models, or attract investment compared with more flexible labour markets Can ageism be an obstacle to a company's development? ✓ to lose valuable experience and institutional knowledge when side lining senior staff ✓ to weaken team diversity by limiting cross-generational collaboration and perspectives ✓ to damage employer brand and talent attraction if labelled as discriminatory ✓ to miss mentoring opportunities for junior staff who benefit from seasoned guidance ✓ been worsened by stereotypes equating age with low adaptability or weak digital skills ✓ to expose company to legal risks and costly discrimination claims in strict jurisdictions 〆to assume innovation only comes from younger employees without downside ageism = prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s age, often manifesting as assumptions about productivity, adaptability, or cultural fit; in the workplace, ageism can exclude older employees from promotions, training, or hiring, causing loss of skills, morale, and diversity; addressing ageism requires awareness campaigns, inclusive policies, and valuing contributions across all age groups knowledge transfer = process of sharing expertise, best practices, and lessons learned from experienced employees to newer staff; effective knowledge transfer preserves organisational memory, prevents repeated mistakes, and accelerates learning curves; structured mentoring, documentation, and collaborative platforms help capture tacit knowledge before it is lost through turnover or retirement Why is agility so important in today's world-wide businesses? ✓ to adapt quickly to market disruptions and emerging competitors ✓ to shorten product development cycles with iterative improvements ✓ to respond flexibly to customer feedback and shifting expectations ✓ to align cross-functional teams around shared goals under uncertainty ✓ been strengthened by digital tools enabling real-time data-driven decisions ✓ to scale operations up or down swiftly depending on demand 〆to rely solely on rigid long-term plans without room for adjustment business agility = capability of an organisation to adapt rapidly to market changes, customer demands, and technological shifts while maintaining core stability; agility combines flexible processes, empowered teams, and quick decision-making cycles; it enables companies to seize opportunities, reduce risks, and innovate continuously, ensuring resilience and long-term competitiveness in volatile environments iterative development = process of creating products or solutions through repeated short cycles of design, testing, feedback, and improvement; this approach reduces risk, increases adaptability, and ensures closer alignment with customer needs compared with large one-off launches What obstacles might a leader encounter when driving transformation in a company where many employees have worked for two decades or more? ✓ to face resistance to change rooted in loyalty to established routines and habits ✓ to overcome scepticism towards new tools, processes, or cultural shifts ✓ to address fear of losing status, roles, or job security during transformation ✓ to deal with limited digital adoption if training and upskilling have lagged ✓ been complicated by entrenched hierarchies and informal networks slowing decisions ✓ to manage generational gaps between long-tenured staff and newer hires 〆to expect instant acceptance of disruptive initiatives without dialogue resistance to change = reluctance or refusal of individuals or groups to adapt to new circumstances, processes, or technologies; often driven by fear of uncertainty, comfort with current routines, or lack of trust in leadership; overcoming it requires clear communication, inclusive planning, training, and visible benefits that build confidence in the transformation organisational inertia = tendency of established structures, cultures, and processes to resist alteration even when external conditions demand change; inertia can slow innovation, decision-making, and adaptation; leaders counter it through strong vision, gradual transitions, incentives, and building coalitions that support change from within 47 20250919 16:05-17:00 1.5 active Case study In Step's relocation By the end of this session you will have studied print Download onto your tablet or print the following pdf for our next lesson. Market Leader 3rd edition Intermediate Case study In Step's relocation icons8-reading-100.png pg 42 background reading market_leader_3rd_intermediate_course_book_pg42-3_141-4_case_study_in_step_s_relocation.pdf zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Market Leader 3rd edition B1 Unit 4 Organisation 46 InStep's relocation active textbook Would you like to work in a green environment, away from town and traffic jams? ✓ once you have a family ✓ when close to retirement (...) Would you like to relocate to a smaller town? 〆lack of appropriate education for children 〆little entertainment, fewer theatre plays & cinemas (...) pg 42 reading background T / Cl A 'getting-to-know-you' meeting is [formal | informal]? ✓ informal → defuse tension Do they want to go ahead with the relocation or just discuss with people? ≠ going ahead (making any decision yet) ✓ reassure people pg 42 reading Getting to know you meeting pg 43 task - role play T / Cl Can companies really cut costs and save jobs by relocating? ✓ cheaper premises ✓ more workspace available ✓ possibly competitive, local labour force pg 43 message from vice-president reading T / Cl What does the vice-president seem to ignore? 〆concern for staff Is the vice-president's message clear about the reasons for relocating? ✓ better communication between the factory and the head office in Paris? ✓ more efficient logistics? (...) Does this message suggest the company is having financial difficulties? (...) pg 43 listening staff worries market_leader/market_leader_3rd_intermediate/market_leader_3rd_intermediate_audio_cd01/market_leader_3rd_intermediate_audio_cd01_030.ogg T / Cl What shock might management be in for? ✓ resistance from staff to relocate pg 43 task - role play pg 141 against relocation pg 144 in favour of relocation pg 144 independent management consultant Lexical material: Change curve - negative emotions (denial, anger, blame, guilt, sadness) video DVD case study commentary Feedback 〆staff will have to choose ✓ management is asking questions before making up their minds 〆management are driving too fast to relocation before staff have had time to consider the pros & cons → staff are victims → staff lack motivation ✓ change curve (process adjustment) → energy drops affects company output & personal lives 〆negative emotions (denial, anger, blame, guilt, sadness) → confidence & energy emerge 〆risk = staff expectations are unmet → massive distraction, motivation, performance → lose talent ✓ opportunity = clarify situation → explain pressure (costs, market competitiveness) → achieve shared understanding in the workforce → make a clear decision to move ∑ staff could be ready & motivated to do what's needed (i.e. save the company...) What conclusions can be drawn? ✓ justify relocation or threaten to cut jobs?!... ]]> 45 2 pix/icons8-dictionary-100_white.png Change curve active wip xml_multi_dd_row Change curve - negative emotions (denial, anger, blame, guilt, sadness) How do people react to change? How may resistance to change impact the company? italics) with the stages]]> 10 9 left shock shock negative emotions negative emotions negative emotions negative emotions process adjustment process adjustment ]]> 1;2 3;4 5;6 7;8 9;10 11;12 13;14 15;16 denial It's not true!
That's impossible! anger What the hell! blame It must be their fault... guilt Is it really our fault? sadness Oh dear, dear, dear... energy drops I can't do anything else
I don't know what to do regain of confidence I think we can try doing something about it! energy emerges Let's try this and that. ]]> shock denial anger → inability to take rational decisions negative emotions blame guilt sadness energy drops → lack of motivation & future goals process adjustment regain of confidence energy emerges → need for new team building & strategies ]]> 44 warehouse = building where large quantities of goods are stored, especially before they are sent to shops/stores to be sold to propose = to suggest a plan, an idea, etc. for people to think about and decide on crèche = day nursery outsourcing = arranging for sb outside a company to do work or provide goods for that company to lack = not to have distraction = thing that takes your attention away from what you are doing or thinking about denial = refusal to accept that sth unpleasant or painful is true blame (for sth) = responsibility for doing sth badly or wrongly guilt = unhappy feelings caused by knowing or thinking that you have done sth wrong 43 20250917 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Vision for attracting talent & developing the region JH | Mock interview 5 By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Bottoms Up - JH B2 Preparing for professional mobility 42 1 Vision for attracting talent & developing the region active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png How can you convince a head hunter you are the right candidate for a position close to C level? How would you attract talent to an area like Belgrade? ✓ recruit some 5% of talent with high profiles to set an example ✓ networking → attract 2-3 FAANG managers to speak in public about their new projects in this company at various conferences ✓ remote-first work → tease other tier 2 employees with adequate remuneration Why would you need to update the current technological stack? ✓ rebuild legacy model to provide more competitive products ✓ sell off some assets ✓ grow some promising areas to become a tier-2 market player What skills should the ideal candidate boast? ✓ experience in big tech companies ✓ AWS technological stack ✓ understanding of European cultural dimensions & expectations What resistance could you face? ✓ local work culture of 20-year-long loyal engineers ✓ work life balance → hire new teams with small but important parts of the product → give a new perspective on how to work in the future What motivates you to apply for this job? ✓ international scale of the business → willing to compromise on compensation & level of responsibilities provided there is room for growth 41 40 20250916 14:35-15:30 1.5 active JH | Mock interview 4 By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Bottoms Up - JH B2 Preparing for professional mobility 39 3 Mock interview - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions When did you last have to make someone redundant? Did you actually dismiss them for professional reasons? → show awareness of cross cultural communication → take into account work life balance concerns ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [ ] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [ ] addresses question with relevant story [ ] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [ ] does not follow a chronological narrative [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [ ] uses metrics effectively [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[ ] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [ ] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) [ ] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [ ] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [ ] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [ ] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[ ] acts as team lead [ ] empowers team members [ ] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [ ] has a vision and is not just a manager
]]> Additional comments
]]> 38 4 Mock interview - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions Have you ever had to dismiss senior staff members for resisting to change in the company? How did you recognise they were just pretending to follow your roadmap? → distinguish results from the set of criteria (e.g. technical requirements) → avoid explaining details to employees who are supposed to be mature enough (e.g. lack of competency) ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [ ] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [ ] addresses question with relevant story [ ] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [ ] does not follow a chronological narrative [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [ ] uses metrics effectively [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[ ] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [ ] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) [ ] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [ ] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [ ] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [ ] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[ ] acts as team lead [ ] empowers team members [ ] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [ ] has a vision and is not just a manager
]]> Additional comments
]]> 37 5 Mock interview - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions How do you ensure staff who seem reluctant to change are proactive & make suggestions? → collect feedback during performance appraisal → recognise they have a vision → find evidence of project ownership ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [ ] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [ ] addresses question with relevant story [ ] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [ ] does not follow a chronological narrative [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [ ] uses metrics effectively [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[ ] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [ ] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) [ ] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [ ] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [ ] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [ ] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[ ] acts as team lead [ ] empowers team members [ ] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [ ] has a vision and is not just a manager
]]> Additional comments
]]> 36 35 got paid attention to how what the recruitment process looks like Sometimes I'm jealous to of such people ]]> 20250912 14:35-15:30 1.5 active JH | Mock interview 3 By the end of this session you will have studied -->
Greatest & weakest points of your career • biggest achievement • professional diligence (beyond the call of duty) • fact-finding & problem-solving challenge • ambitions & failures
Behavioural questions • What is your biggest achievement? • Give me a specific example of a time when you used good judgement and logic in solving a problem. • Give me an example of a time when you set a goal and were able to meet or achieve it. • Tell me about a time when you had to go above and beyond the call of duty in order to get a job done. • Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. • Give me an example of a time when you used your fact-finding skills to solve a problem. • Describe a time when you anticipated potential problems and developed preventive measures. • Describe a time when you set your sights too high (or too low). • Give me an example of a time when you tried to accomplish something and failed. • Tell me about a time when you missed an obvious solution to a problem.
Support stories (list your own!) 1 Implementing a new software tool that increased productivity by 30% 2 Launching a product that became a market leader within six months 3 Working overtime to meet tight deadlines for a key client project 4 Performing a root cause analysis to address recurring operational bottlenecks (...)
zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Bottoms Up - JH B2 Preparing for professional mobility 34 1 Mock interview - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions Give me a specific example of a time when you had to conform to a policy with which you did not agree. ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [X] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [X] addresses question with relevant story [ ] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [?] does not follow a chronological narrative [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [ ] uses metrics effectively [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[ ] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [ ] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) [ ] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [ ] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [X] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [ ] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[ ] acts as team lead [ ] empowers team members [ ] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [ ] has a vision and is not just a manager
]]> Additional comments
S relocation due to outbreak of war in 2022 created foreign legal entity increasing currency exchange rate cost reduction for staff working from abroad T 01:58 as part of management, I had to communicate this decision and support it 02:36 A short-listed most important and/or irreplaceable employees in a table considered options to retain them reviewed various compensation rules to mitigate consequences of business decision provided additional support to compensate for gap in salary conducted 1-1 meeting w/ employees R 03:24 some people started to resign 03:40 15% attrition rate ✓ hadn't reduced impact on product delivery 04:11 end Feedback ✓ shortened STAR 〆S as long as before → even less time spent on T & A
]]> 33 1 Communication strategies active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png What communication strategies do you use to describe your achievements & goals? https://applypass.com/star-format-burned-out-faded-away/ → answer the questions ]]> https://applypass.com/star-format-burned-out-faded-away/ The Minto Pyramid Principle (aka the McKinsey’s Pyramid Principle) Minto Pyramid Principle, also referred to as the McKinsey’s Pyramid Principle, is a tool used to process and structure large amounts of information to convey a story, message or presentation without omitting important details. The principle of the McKinsey Pyramid is to cut to the chase in written texts or presentations. This ensures that the audience’s attention is captured and that a riveting story can be created that’s easy to remember and understand. https://www.toolshero.com/communication-skills/minto-pyramid-principle/ BLUF Bottom Line Up Front is basically the staff-and-above-level special: it’s extraordinary at shielding your counterpart from unnecessary details; you tell them the most important thing first, don’t make them wait til the end to hear why they should be listening at the beginning! This is the opposite approach of STAR, which often buries the lede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) ]]> What is the STAR method? When do you use it? (S) Situation (T) Task (A) Action (R) Result = technique used by interviewers to gather all the relevant information about a specific capability that the job requires What typical mistakes could you make when using the STAR method? 〆may promote windbag answers 〆is reminiscent of a playbook → suggests filling up time (2-3min / qs) rather than focusing on relevance 〆doesn't allow a natural exchange with the interlocutor → may ignore follow-up questions → prefer a faster answer (to leave room for follow-up questions) windbag = person who talks too much, and does not say anything important or interesting playbook = set of rules, suggestions, or methods that are considered to be suitable for a particular activity, industry, job, etc In what other communicative situations could you use STAR? ✓ need to explain a challenge to a new audience from scratch → is probably not relevant when the situation is internal to an organisation ✓ report results at a presentation / webinar ✓ story telling Less is more?]]> ✓ focus on results → start with the conclusion ✓ provide only details to support your answer → invert the narrative progression from introduction (situation) to bottom-line first What is the Minto Pyramid (aka McKinsey Pyramid)? 1. answer, thesis or key point 2. arguments & main points 3. supporting details & ideas Minto Pyramid = effective communication tool to quickly and clearly communicate complex issues to busy business executives. Developed in 1987 by Barbara Minto, a McKinsey consultant, and is used not only by McKinsey but by most top consulting firms What is BLUF? ✓ Bottom Line Up Front ✓ relevant to senior staff & management levels = busy, time-constrained, or overloaded with lots of information → shields counterpart from unnecessary details ✓ tell the most important thing first → don’t make audience wait for the end = understand the rationale from the start → relevant to presentations ✓ don't give empty instructions = if they need to read you, explain why at the beginning 32 31 to abroad I moved all tried not to sharemy feelings away ]]> 20250911 17:05-18:00 1.5 active JH | Mock interview 2 By the end of this session you will have studied -->
Greatest & weakest points of your career • biggest achievement • professional diligence (beyond the call of duty) • fact-finding & problem-solving challenge • ambitions & failures
Behavioural questions • What is your biggest achievement? • Give me a specific example of a time when you used good judgement and logic in solving a problem. • Give me an example of a time when you set a goal and were able to meet or achieve it. • Tell me about a time when you had to go above and beyond the call of duty in order to get a job done. • Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. • Give me an example of a time when you used your fact-finding skills to solve a problem. • Describe a time when you anticipated potential problems and developed preventive measures. • Describe a time when you set your sights too high (or too low). • Give me an example of a time when you tried to accomplish something and failed. • Tell me about a time when you missed an obvious solution to a problem.
Support stories (list your own!) 1 Implementing a new software tool that increased productivity by 30% 2 Launching a product that became a market leader within six months 3 Working overtime to meet tight deadlines for a key client project 4 Performing a root cause analysis to address recurring operational bottlenecks (...)
zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Bottoms Up - JH B2 Preparing for professional mobility 30 1 Mock interview - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions Give me an example of a time when you tried to accomplish something and failed. ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [ ] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [?] addresses question with relevant story [ ] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [!] does not follow a chronological narrative does! [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [?] uses metrics effectively ← too vague [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[ ] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [ ] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) [ ] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [X] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [ ] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [?] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[ ] acts as team lead [X] empowers team members [ ] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [!] has a vision and is not just a manager ← need to stress it was YOUR idea (give examples of resistance)
]]> Additional comments
business verticals need to contribute to horizontal concerns 00:55 looking right S 01:07 the problem was = too long T 01:40 I realised that = unclear 02:00 A so I started the in-house developed, internal platformisation program talked w/ vertical teams obtained metrics organised w/ all require-ts at hand a lot of horizontal teams involved ← metrics? asked for additional staff ← metrics? 04:11 boss forced to work on another project = chronological narrative too many technical details redevelop platform each time had new requests → not as expected every product changes required interacting w/ horizontals 06:09 in the end insisted on making more abstract 06:28 so, yeah, what concl I made was... need to involve everybody teams should be truly interested in making it more ... the right way ← vocab! 07:32 end Feedback future-proof, pro-active, diligent, ... solution
]]> 29 28 20250908 14:35-15:30 1.5 active JH | Mock interview By the end of this session you will have studied -->
Greatest & weakest points of your career • biggest achievement • professional diligence (beyond the call of duty) • fact-finding & problem-solving challenge • ambitions & failures
Behavioural questions • What is your biggest achievement? • Give me a specific example of a time when you used good judgement and logic in solving a problem. • Give me an example of a time when you set a goal and were able to meet or achieve it. • Tell me about a time when you had to go above and beyond the call of duty in order to get a job done. • Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. • Give me an example of a time when you used your fact-finding skills to solve a problem. • Describe a time when you anticipated potential problems and developed preventive measures. • Describe a time when you set your sights too high (or too low). • Give me an example of a time when you tried to accomplish something and failed. • Tell me about a time when you missed an obvious solution to a problem.
Support stories (list your own!) 1 Implementing a new software tool that increased productivity by 30% 2 Launching a product that became a market leader within six months 3 Working overtime to meet tight deadlines for a key client project 4 Performing a root cause analysis to address recurring operational bottlenecks (...)
zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Bottoms Up - JH B2 Preparing for professional mobility 27 1 Mock interview - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions Describe a time when you anticipated potential problems and developed preventive measures. ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [ ] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [ ] addresses question with relevant story [X] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [ ] does not follow a chronological narrative [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [X] uses metrics effectively [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[!] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [ ] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) [X] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [!] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [ ] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [?] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[ ] acts as team lead [ ] empowers team members [?] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [ ] has a vision and is not just a manager
]]> Additional comments
〆I can start with the story when S ~ 2min head of com at Vito = too long 02:00 I did some research re potential... 02:37 I developed some technology to grow the messenger as much we want we created we re-factored our perf test showed we are able to handle 10x more load if we needed 03:54 later on, business came w/ the idea... 04:18 we were able to raise 04:34 eventually share 40% Feedback S Managing technical platform for future growth T enable business to grow its messenger usage
]]> 26 2 Mock interview - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions Tell me about a time when you were forced to make an unpopular decision. ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [ ] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [ ] addresses question with relevant story [!] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [!] does not follow a chronological narrative [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [!] uses metrics effectively [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[〆] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) was v. chronological [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [?] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) only meetings? [ ] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [ ] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [ ] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [?] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[ ] acts as team lead [ ] empowers team members [ ] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [ ] has a vision and is not just a manager
]]> Additional comments
S empower vertical stream change current org structure up to CTO → impact real estate vertical 01:51 I had to go to tell him he wouldn't handle any more... 02:16 Yeah, I talked to him, I told him → T (?) If you handle it carefully, successfully, you would be my successor A (?) 03:29 several meetings additional support 03:37 transferred to new grade he was able to succeed to you after 2 years 04:12 unexpected ending
]]> 25 3 8 Set of support stories active prep_ol_qa edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-hand-with-pen-100_white.png Have you got enough support stories to answer all possible behavioural questions?
Greatest & weakest points of your career • biggest achievement • professional diligence (beyond the call of duty) • fact-finding & problem-solving challenge • ambitions & failures
Behavioural questions • What is your biggest achievement? • Give me a specific example of a time when you used good judgement and logic in solving a problem. • Give me an example of a time when you set a goal and were able to meet or achieve it. • Tell me about a time when you had to go above and beyond the call of duty in order to get a job done. • Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. • Give me an example of a time when you used your fact-finding skills to solve a problem. • Describe a time when you anticipated potential problems and developed preventive measures. • Describe a time when you set your sights too high (or too low). • Give me an example of a time when you tried to accomplish something and failed. • Tell me about a time when you missed an obvious solution to a problem.
Support stories (list your own!) 1 Implementing a new software tool that increased productivity by 30% 2 Launching a product that became a market leader within six months 3 Working overtime to meet tight deadlines for a key client project 4 Performing a root cause analysis to address recurring operational bottlenecks (...)
]]> Greatest & weakest points of your career biggest achievement professional diligence (beyond the call of duty) fact-finding & problem-solving challenge ambitions & failures Upstream & downstream feedback making a long-lasting impact or being appreciated motivating others (as a team player pulling their weight) missing an obvious solution dealing with negative upstream and/or downstream feedback When things go wrong, do you take time to evaluate your work? Cross functional collaboration feedback from previous boss & colleagues difficult relationships at work developing preventive measures showing initiative and taking the lead presentation skills to influence someone's opinion managing cross-functional stakeholder relationships and partnerships Conflict resolution ways & means of dealing with conflict argumentative pitch to overcome someone's resistance stressful situation stretching your coping skills dealing with a very upset customer or co-worker conforming to a controversial policy prioritising tasks Leadership building team spirit delegating a project effectively distinguishing leadership from management taking a decision on the spur of the moment making an unpopular decision firing a friend Where do you see yourself in 5 years? contribution to shaping technical direction and setting team's roadmap Mentoring mentoring junior team members building a high-performing and psychologically safe team culture strategy for growing engineers within your team to support long-term retention and leadership succession Give definitions of approximately 100 words for each buzzword which a head hunter would expect to hear in each answer about the topics above mentioned. Use British English spelling and grammar. Use the delimiter ' = ' between the key expression and the definition. Don't use capital letters at the beginning of the key expression. Don't use a full stop at the end of the definition. ]]> Greatest & weakest points of your career biggest achievement professional diligence (beyond the call of duty) fact-finding & problem-solving challenge ambitions & failures ]]> Upstream & downstream feedback making a long-lasting impact or being appreciated motivating others (as a team player pulling their weight) missing an obvious solution dealing with negative upstream and/or downstream feedback When things go wrong, do you take time to evaluate your work? ]]> Cross functional collaboration feedback from previous boss & colleagues difficult relationships at work developing preventive measures showing initiative and taking the lead presentation skills to influence someone's opinion managing cross-functional stakeholder relationships and partnerships ]]> Conflict resolution ways & means of dealing with conflict argumentative pitch to overcome someone's resistance stressful situation stretching your coping skills dealing with a very upset customer or co-worker conforming to a controversial policy prioritising tasks ]]> Leadership building team spirit delegating a project effectively distinguishing leadership from management taking a decision on the spur of the moment making an unpopular decision firing a friend Where do you see yourself in 5 years? contribution to shaping technical direction and setting team's roadmap ]]> Mentoring mentoring junior team members building a high-performing and psychologically safe team culture strategy for growing engineers within your team to support long-term retention and leadership succession ]]> 24 23 20250905 16:05-17:00 1.5 active JH | Formatting notes for support stories | Mock interview By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Bottoms Up - JH B2 Preparing for professional mobility 22 1 pix/icons8-microscope-100_white.png Formatting notes for support stories active wip xml_multi_dd_row How can you prepare your notes to ensure you sound both self-confident and spontaneous? 14 6 left version 1
liaising 4 Doc & Loc dept
15 new articles
feedback - EU US sm experts
doc improved in prod descriptions 4 sales
knowledge sharing version 2
While I was liaising for the Documentation & Localization department of my previous company I authored 15 new articles, indeed I had been tasked to collect feedback from subject matter experts from Europe & the US; the latter really helped me improve documentation in product descriptions for the sales team and, consequently, I successfully contributed to knowledge sharing. version 3
I authored 15 new articles for the Documentation & Localization department in my previous company.

This was achieved by communicating with a multitude of stakeholders, such as European and North American subject matter experts.

As a result the documentation in product descriptions for the sales team was much improved.
Consequently, I successfully contributed to knowledge sharing. version 4
• liaising for the Documentation & Localization department
• author of 15 new articles
• collected feedback from European and North American subject matter experts
• documentation improved in product descriptions for the sales team
• contributed to knowledge sharing version 5
• liaised for the Documentation & Localization department
• communicated with a multitude of stakeholders
• authored 15 new articles
• collected feedback from European and North American subject matter experts
• improved documentation in product descriptions for the sales team
• contributed to knowledge sharing version 6
• liaising for the Documentation & Localization department
• communication with a multitude of stakeholders
• authoring of 15 new articles
• feedback collection from European and North American subject matter experts
• improvement of documentation in product descriptions for the sales team
• contribution to knowledge sharing ]]> 1 2 3 4 5 6 telegraphic liaising 4 Doc & Loc dept 15 new articles feedback - EU US sm experts doc improved in prod descriptions 4 sales knowledge sharing 〆telegraphic notes are less legible without context prose While I was liaising for the Documentation & Localization department of my previous company I authored 15 new articles, indeed I had been tasked to collect feedback from subject matter experts from Europe & the US; the latter really helped me improve documentation in product descriptions for the sales team and, consequently, I successfully contributed to knowledge sharing. 〆prose with lengthy sentences features much unnecessary information → hampers improvisation paragraphing I authored 15 new articles for the Documentation & Localization department in my previous company. This was achieved by communicating with a multitude of stakeholders, such as European and North American subject matter experts. As a result the documentation in product descriptions for the sales team was much improved. Consequently, I successfully contributed to knowledge sharing. 〆paragraphing of thoughts is only relevant to answers in written interviews, provided they remain succinct bullet points • liaising for the Documentation & Localization department • author of 15 new articles • collected feedback from European and North American subject matter experts • documentation improved in product descriptions for the sales team • contributed to knowledge sharing 〆inconsistent grammar forms & disparate bullet points may be confusing grammatically balanced with action verbs (past participles, gerunds, noun phrases) • liaised for the Documentation & Localization department • communicated with a multitude of stakeholders • authored 15 new articles • collected feedback from European and North American subject matter experts • improved documentation in product descriptions for the sales team • contributed to knowledge sharing ✓ bullet points with action verbs are more legible & easier to retrieve relevant data from → faster to drill, recycle for another question and improvise with = recommended format for preparing answers to questions grammatically balanced with gerunds & noun phrases • liaising for the Documentation & Localization department • communication with a multitude of stakeholders • authoring of 15 new articles • feedback collection from European and North American subject matter experts • improvement of documentation in product descriptions for the sales team • contribution to knowledge sharing 〆lengthy noun phrases & gerunds with prepositions are more relevant to listing skills in a CV than past actions ]]> 21 1 Mock interview - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions What is your greatest achievement? ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [ ] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [ ] addresses question with relevant story [ ] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [ ] does not follow a chronological narrative [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [ ] uses metrics effectively [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[ ] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [ ] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) [ ] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [ ] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [ ] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [ ] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[ ] acts as team lead [ ] empowers team members [ ] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [ ] has a vision and is not just a manager
]]> Additional comments
]]> 20 to bite your lip = to repress an emotion; stifle laughter or repress a retort 19 20250903 17:05-18:00 1.5 active JH | Brainstorming past projects | Identifying support stories | Mock interview By the end of this session you will have studied Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Bottoms Up - JH B2 Preparing for professional mobility 18 1 Brainstorming past projects for supporting support stories active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png How can you figure out what experience may be relevant to support your support stories? What business problem was this project supposed to solve? What were the greatest technical challenges? (Usually, the more interesting ones are the ones you didn't expect) What approach did you take? What are the drawbacks to the approach you chose? What alternative approaches did you consider? How did you compare the approaches? What trade-offs did you consider? How did you profile them? How did you compare scalability for each? What was your vision for how each technology would evolve over time? What were the functional challenges? Did you have to do something faster than usual? Or with less resources than usual? How new was the subject matter to you? How many other teams or stakeholders did you work with on this? How much pre-established process was there in place for your role? What were the interpersonal challenges? What did you learn? → look for gems What business problem was this project supposed to solve? What were the greatest technical challenges? (Usually, the more interesting ones are the ones you didn't expect) What approach did you take? What are the drawbacks to the approach you chose? What alternative approaches did you consider? How did you compare the approaches? What trade-offs did you consider? How did you profile them? How did you compare scalability for each? What was your vision for how each technology would evolve over time? What were the functional challenges? Did you have to do something faster than usual? Or with less resources than usual? How new was the subject matter to you? How many other teams or stakeholders did you work with on this? How much pre-established process was there in place for your role? What were the interpersonal challenges? What did you learn? 17 20231003 hw20231010 pix/icons8-hand-with-pen-100_white.png 2 Identifying support stories edit_ol_qa_writing prep_ol_qa_writing stopwatch active Variety of leadership principle questions and answers Do not use the same story more than twice. Prepare 2-3 stories per each of the LPs. If you do use the same story, point it out explicitly. In that case, they, most probably, will ask you to provide another story. In the end, all interviewers will share what they've got with each other and if it appears that you've got just 1-3 interesting stories, then they may think that you haven't experienced enough yet. Add support stories for: → Leadership → Mentoring Give 2-3 examples for the following categories/areas of interest. Explaining how you behave should be supported by personal and memorable stories. → make sure these examples illustrate some key concepts described above. Upstream & downstream feedback Have you ever had to deal with negative upstream and/or downstream feedback? What would your previous boss & colleagues say about you? (...) ✓ Key concepts: → taking things with a pinch of salt (distancing) → lesson learnt (resilience) ✓ Support stories: → disappointing performance review by a superior in spite of your hard work → misunderstanding of a given task ]]> Greatest & weakest points of your career What is your biggest achievement? Give me a specific example of a time when you used good judgement and logic in solving a problem. Give me an example of a time when you set a goal and were able to meet or achieve it. Tell me about a time when you had to go above and beyond the call of duty in order to get a job done. Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. Give me an example of a time when you used your fact-finding skills to solve a problem. Describe a time when you anticipated potential problems and developed preventive measures. Describe a time when you set your sights too high (or too low). Give me an example of a time when you tried to accomplish something and failed. Tell me about a time when you missed an obvious solution to a problem. ✓ Key concepts: ✓ Support stories: ]]> ✓ Key concepts: → critical thinking (in assessing realistic goals) → not resting on your laurels → not collecting only low-hanging fruit ✓ Support stories: → lack of professional experience, best practice → insufficient management routines (e.g. cross-reviews) Cross functional collaboration What would your previous boss & colleagues say about you? How do you build team spirit? Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. Describe a situation in which you were able to use persuasion to successfully convince someone to see things your way. Tell me about a time when you had to use your presentation skills to influence someone's opinion. Would you like to make a long-lasting impact or be appreciated? Give me a specific example of a time when you had to conform to a policy with which you did not agree. Please discuss an important written document you were required to complete. ✓ Key concepts: ✓ Support stories: ]]> ✓ Key concepts: → visionary skills e.g. anticipated trends → team player, gluer, doer, team leader e.g. pulling the team together, inspiring junior staff as a role model... → show impact you have made on others & in the company e.g. now some in-house corporate policy is based on your successful way of achieving a certain goal → showing mutual benefits in deploying a specific solution e.g. scratch my back and I'll scratch yours → adapting delivering to the audience e.g. grading language & simplifying the message → providing a synthesised reply ✓ Support stories: → persuading heads of other depts (e.g. marketing, sales, finance, IT...) to choose your solution / plan → management has appreciated recommendations you had proffered: in retrospect, you were right when everyone else was misled or confused → explaining sth difficult in simple terms for top management → using relevant jargon with team members Conflict resolution Have you ever had to deal with negative upstream and/or downstream feedback? What is your typical way of dealing with conflict? Give me an example. Describe a situation in which you were able to use persuasion to successfully convince someone to see things your way. When did you last experience a stressful situation that stretched your coping skills? Give me a specific example of a time when you had to conform to a policy with which you did not agree. Tell me about a time when you had too many things to do and you were required to prioritize your tasks. Give me an example of a time when you had to make a split second decision. Tell me about a time you were able to successfully deal with another person even when that individual may not have personally liked you (or vice versa). Tell me about a difficult decision you've made in the last year. Tell me about a recent situation in which you had to deal with a very upset customer or co-worker. Describe a time when you anticipated potential problems and developed preventive measures. Tell me about a time when you were forced to make an unpopular decision. Please tell me about a time you had to fire a friend. ✓ Key concepts: ✓ Support stories: ]]> Leadership Give me an example of when you showed initiative and took the lead. Give me an example of a time when you had to make a split second decision. Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. Tell me about a time when you delegated a project effectively. What is your biggest achievement as a leader? Where do you see yourself in 5 years? Would you like to make a long-lasting impact or be appreciated? How do you build team spirit? Describe a situation in which you were able to use persuasion to successfully convince someone to see things your way. Tell me about a time when you had to use your presentation skills to influence someone's opinion. Describe a time when you anticipated potential problems and developed preventive measures. Tell me about a time when you were forced to make an unpopular decision. Please tell me about a time you had to fire a friend. ✓ Key concepts: ✓ Support stories: ]]> ✓ Key concepts: → not only having a supervising role → empowerment → inspirational → multi-generational → decision reached by consensus ✓ Support stories: → took initiative & become a mediator | moderator between company & client → created & shared a vision in times of troubles to save the company's reputation → inspired & motivated team members to follow suit despite additional efforts involved → as a leader, managed to brainstorm ideas with team members to reach a common decision Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. → support becoming too difficult - needed to analyse and find a solution Tell me about a time when you delegated a project effectively. Mentoring Where do you see yourself in 5 years? How do you mentor junior team members? How do you build team spirit? Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. Please tell me about a time you had to fire a friend. ]]> ✓ Key concepts: → mention (geographic) scale & impact at company level on various staff members → evidence mentoring skills when dealing with a challenging employee → show the difference between coaching & mentoring → lesson(s) learnt by your mentee ✓ Support stories: → invested time in a promising recruit who proved to become of the company's strongest assets → groomed staff members who have eventually taken your position or relocated to other countries in multinationals → conducted a challenging appraisal review with a close colleague (friend) who had failed to reach objectives → discharged a manager from an important project → self-confident friend didn't escalate an issue in time Upstream & downstream feedback Have you ever had to deal with negative upstream and/or downstream feedback? What would your previous boss & colleagues say about you? Would you like to make a long-lasting impact or be appreciated? Tell me about a time when you delegated a project effectively. Please tell me about a time you had to fire a friend. ✓ Key concepts: ✓ Support stories: ]]> ✓ Key concepts: → professional diligence → inspirational impact on colleagues → taking things with a pinch of salt (distancing vs overreacting) → anticipating stress & controlling emotions → lesson learnt (resilience) ✓ Support stories: → mixed peer review which shook your confidence → report re-written & defaced by proof-readers / manager → disappointing performance review by a superior in spite of your hard work → misunderstanding of a given task → pushed to the limits & destabilised by your mentor to get you out of your comfort zone Please tell me about a time you had to fire a friend. ✓ Follow-up questions: How would have someone else reacted in this situation? → may have overreacted → may not want to bite their lip to bite your lip = to repress an emotion; stifle laughter or repress a retort 16 1 Mock interview - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions What is your biggest achievement? ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [ ] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [X] addresses question with relevant story [ ] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [ ] does not follow a chronological narrative [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [X] uses metrics effectively [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[ ] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [ ] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) [ ] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [X] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [ ] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [ ] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[X] acts as team lead [ ] empowers team members [ ] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [X] has a vision and is not just a manager
]]> Additional comments
S 00:57 noticed fraud in communication channels competitors parsing contents & stealing data 10% covered by messenger T 02:15 our target was 3 objectives call tracking cutting costs messenger share A 02:55 real option was to grow share 03:27 I introduced VoiP calls 03:49 I built a small prototype realised needed to build own platform looked for a good manager failed to find a single person w/ needed expertise 05:17 I changed my mind hired a lead developer 〆needs shortening → considered options to recruit talent R 05:41 after 3 months we were able to launch our own platform scaled to 20-25% users postponed to next part after mobile operators 06:40 negotiated w/ mobile operators to handle more calls I introduced dynamic tracking reduced cost of call tracking 07:31 covered 100% of communication after 18 months reduced fraud 10X CPA model of monetisation ie charge only if real leads follow-up Follow-up questions What challenges did you face? Feedback & self-criticism 〆4-year old support story ✓ best techy story ✓✓✓ only ~ 100 people competent enough to engineer such solution at the time
]]> 15 2 Mock interview 2 - Feedback Mock interview (general format) - Feedback TEMPLATE active prep_2columns_2qa edit_2columns_2qa pix/icons8-quiz-100_white.png Use this assessment sheet for feedback of behavioural questions Give me an example of a time when you motivated others. ]]> stopwatch Methodology
[ ] paraphrases question to confirm understanding [ ] elicits expected skills to be validated by initial behavioural question (by 'thinking aloud') [?] addresses question with relevant story [ ] shows awareness of and/or experience in adjacent core skills [!] does not follow a chronological narrative [ ] follows a clear & logical narrative progression (STAR, CARL, BLUF, Minto/McKinsey Pyramid, SWOT...) [!] uses metrics effectively [ ] engages in natural conversation (no regurgitation, attentive to follow-up questions)
Use of STAR approach
[ ] succinct situation (and NOT a chronological description) [ ] single-sentence task (focusing on 'I' rather than 'we') [!] numerous actions (incl. cross collaboration to suggest size) [ ] results (incl. for a variety of stakeholders to show impact scale) AND lessons learnt
Target area(s) of interest
[ ] identifies skills (areas of interest) to be evidenced in the support story [ ] greatest & weakest points of your career [ ] upstream & downstream feedback [ ] cross functional collaboration [ ] conflict resolution [X] leadership [ ] mentoring
Leadership tell-tale signs
[ ] acts as team lead [?] empowers team members [ ] can initiate & take decisions without hierarchical support [ ] has a vision and is not just a manager
]]> Additional comments
S ≠ transferring one business model to another category = retaining talent during a big project T 00:40 build 01:28 A started building ! chronological description tech unit leader given a competitive offer gave arguments to retain talent promised to build a larger team completed together a plan 03:52 in 6 months we... 04:15 eventually he was able to take the position of ... now running a team of 18 engineers
]]> 14 to bite your lip = to repress an emotion; stifle laughter or repress a retort 13 20250901 18:05-19:00 1.5 active JH | Sticky points | Communication strategies | STAR format: Burned out, faded away | Kinds of leadership By the end of this session you will have studied STAR format: Burned out, faded away → read the article → what mistakes described are similar to yours? https://applypass.com/star-format-burned-out-faded-away/ zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Bottoms Up - JH B2 Preparing for professional mobility 12 3 Sticky points Describing weaknesses edit_ol_qa prep_ol_qa active Are you able to anticipate areas that a head hunter may try to use against you to destabilise you during a stress or case interview? Prepare your answers to the following sticky questions. → practise with the stopwatch → identify areas that may need improvement stopwatch What could be your weakest points? 〆a bit of a perfectionist ≠ over-engineering! → show you understand the dangers of being in a rabbit hole situation e.g. set yourself deadlines 〆superficial knowledge in some areas 〆transitional period for adapting to new environment e.g. hit the ground running by anticipating company needs in ... 〆lack of confidence in use of language e.g. taking English lessons sticky = (informal) difficult or unpleasant rabbit hole = situation in which you become so interested in a subject or an activity that you cannot stop trying to find out about it or doing it superficial = of or on the surface of sth; (often disapproving) not studying or looking at sth thoroughly; seeing only what is obvious; appearing to be true, real or important until you look at it more carefully What differences in interpersonal skills & leadership will you encounter? = show awareness of possible blind spots → expect a mix of styles which depends on the company's corporate culture

McGregor - Theory X and Theory Y Management

mc_gregor_theory_x_theory_y_management_chart01.png mc_gregor_theory_x_theory_y_management_chart02.png
]]> ✓ use relevant examples & MBA methodology when applying for a management position e.g. I had to be a McGregor X-type kind of manager when... empowerment = encouraging workers to improve the way they do their own jobs; to give sb the power or authority to do sth linear-active culture = culture where you may want to be concise, precise, and factual, avoid interruptions and distractions, and follow a clear agenda and timeline What constructive feedback would your peers share about you? ✓ team player ✓ inspiring leader ✓ provide occasional hands-on support if team members need help = be supportive → show potential for growth ✓ give an example (consider using the STAR method) ✓ avoid confrontation because you should be a team player e.g. I should pay more attention to what exactly people say What would be the hardest part of coming to this company? ✓ work-life balance → relocation of your family 〆coping with stressful deadlines 〆having regular performance appraisal during the probation period 〆lacking proper induction 11 1 Communication strategies active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png What communication strategies do you use to describe your achievements & goals? https://applypass.com/star-format-burned-out-faded-away/ → answer the questions ]]> https://applypass.com/star-format-burned-out-faded-away/ The Minto Pyramid Principle (aka the McKinsey’s Pyramid Principle) Minto Pyramid Principle, also referred to as the McKinsey’s Pyramid Principle, is a tool used to process and structure large amounts of information to convey a story, message or presentation without omitting important details. The principle of the McKinsey Pyramid is to cut to the chase in written texts or presentations. This ensures that the audience’s attention is captured and that a riveting story can be created that’s easy to remember and understand. https://www.toolshero.com/communication-skills/minto-pyramid-principle/ BLUF Bottom Line Up Front is basically the staff-and-above-level special: it’s extraordinary at shielding your counterpart from unnecessary details; you tell them the most important thing first, don’t make them wait til the end to hear why they should be listening at the beginning! This is the opposite approach of STAR, which often buries the lede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) ]]> What is the STAR method? When do you use it? (S) Situation (T) Task (A) Action (R) Result = technique used by interviewers to gather all the relevant information about a specific capability that the job requires What typical mistakes could you make when using the STAR method? 〆may promote windbag answers 〆is reminiscent of a playbook → suggests filling up time (2-3min / qs) rather than focusing on relevance 〆doesn't allow a natural exchange with the interlocutor → may ignore follow-up questions → prefer a faster answer (to leave room for follow-up questions) windbag = person who talks too much, and does not say anything important or interesting playbook = set of rules, suggestions, or methods that are considered to be suitable for a particular activity, industry, job, etc In what other communicative situations could you use STAR? ✓ need to explain a challenge to a new audience from scratch → is probably not relevant when the situation is internal to an organisation ✓ report results at a presentation / webinar ✓ story telling Less is more?]]> ✓ focus on results → start with the conclusion ✓ provide only details to support your answer → invert the narrative progression from introduction (situation) to bottom-line first What is the Minto Pyramid (aka McKinsey Pyramid)? 1. answer, thesis or key point 2. arguments & main points 3. supporting details & ideas Minto Pyramid = effective communication tool to quickly and clearly communicate complex issues to busy business executives. Developed in 1987 by Barbara Minto, a McKinsey consultant, and is used not only by McKinsey but by most top consulting firms What is BLUF? ✓ Bottom Line Up Front ✓ relevant to senior staff & management levels = busy, time-constrained, or overloaded with lots of information → shields counterpart from unnecessary details ✓ tell the most important thing first → don’t make audience wait for the end = understand the rationale from the start → relevant to presentations ✓ don't give empty instructions = if they need to read you, explain why at the beginning 10 2 pix/icons8-dictionary-100_white.png Choosing communication strategies active wip xml_multi_dd_row Would you know how to communicate under pressure? What different approaches can you choose depending on the context? 30 12 left → focus mostly on the results Minto / McKinsey Pyramid
→ convince with details as long as it is necessary (from most to least important) STAR (Situation, Task, Actions, Result)
→ sum up a story ]]> 1;2 3;4;5 6;7;8;9 9 1 Brainstorming past projects for supporting support stories active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png How can you figure out what experience may be relevant to support your support stories? What business problem was this project supposed to solve? What were the greatest technical challenges? (Usually, the more interesting ones are the ones you didn't expect) What approach did you take? What are the drawbacks to the approach you chose? What alternative approaches did you consider? How did you compare the approaches? What trade-offs did you consider? How did you profile them? How did you compare scalability for each? What was your vision for how each technology would evolve over time? What were the functional challenges? Did you have to do something faster than usual? Or with less resources than usual? How new was the subject matter to you? How many other teams or stakeholders did you work with on this? How much pre-established process was there in place for your role? What were the interpersonal challenges? What did you learn? → look for gems What business problem was this project supposed to solve? What were the greatest technical challenges? (Usually, the more interesting ones are the ones you didn't expect) What approach did you take? What are the drawbacks to the approach you chose? What alternative approaches did you consider? How did you compare the approaches? What trade-offs did you consider? How did you profile them? How did you compare scalability for each? What was your vision for how each technology would evolve over time? What were the functional challenges? Did you have to do something faster than usual? Or with less resources than usual? How new was the subject matter to you? How many other teams or stakeholders did you work with on this? How much pre-established process was there in place for your role? What were the interpersonal challenges? What did you learn? 8 1 Recognising metrics & impact active edit_ol_qa pix/icons8-collaboration-100_white.png If you want to find metrics and impact for anything you've built, you can ask yourself questions such as: How large was its dataset or how many rows of data were analyzed to make it? How many devices/users did it launch to or will it launch to? How many engineering hours did it save? How many non-engineering hours did it save? How often (how many times per year) will these hours be saved? What is the cost of those yearly hours? How much money is processed by it? How much more accurate or effective was it than a given benchmark? How much was efficiency or productivity increased by it? What did users or colleagues say about it? How large was its dataset or how many rows of data were analyzed to make it? How many devices/users did it launch to or will it launch to? How many engineering hours did it save? How many non-engineering hours did it save? How often (how many times per year) will these hours be saved? What is the cost of those yearly hours? How much money is processed by it? How much more accurate or effective was it than a given benchmark? How much was efficiency or productivity increased by it? What did users or colleagues say about it? 7 5 pix/icons8-dictionary-100_white.png Kinds of leadership strategies (1/2) active wip xml_multi_dd_row What strategies should a leader demonstrate experience in? 14 14 left 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 pix/icons8-dictionary-100_white.png Kinds of leadership strategies (2/2) active wip xml_multi_dd_row What strategies should a leader demonstrate experience in? 14 14 left 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 legacy leadership = mindset and approach of leading with the intention of creating long-term value and positive change that lasts beyond one's tenure. Focuses on empowerment, sustainable growth, and cultural influence within organizations. Legacy leaders build systems and shape people to continue evolving and succeeding independently strategic delegation = deliberate assignment of responsibilities based on team members’ strengths, development needs, and organizational priorities. Increases efficiency, builds trust, enhances team capabilities, and allows leaders to focus on higher-level planning while empowering others to grow ethical leadership = leading with integrity, fairness, and moral clarity, especially during challenging decisions. It emphasizes transparency, accountability, and doing what is right—even when uncomfortable. Ethical leaders prioritize values over convenience and inspire trust through consistent ethical actions proactive leadership = involves anticipating needs, initiating change, and acting in advance to address potential obstacles. It reflects a leader's drive to improve performance, foster innovation, and take responsibility without waiting for directives. This leadership style inspires confidence, energizes teams, and ensures continuous progress in uncertain environments decisive leadership = ability to make clear, timely, and confident decisions, especially under pressure. It requires sharp analytical skills, emotional regulation, and trust in one’s judgement. Effective decisive leaders minimize risk, adapt swiftly, and provide clarity to teams when every second counts transformational leadership = driving significant change by inspiring and developing people toward a common vision. These leaders elevate team performance, challenge the status quo, and create environments where innovation and personal growth thrive. They build trust and commitment through bold action and inclusive leadership visionary leadership = crafting and communicating a compelling future direction that inspires progress and strategic innovation. These leaders look beyond short-term goals, aligning teams and resources to long-range ambitions. Their clarity, foresight, and resilience help organizations anticipate change and create meaningful impact team-centric leadership = emphasizes collective success, mutual respect, and collaborative problem-solving. These leaders cultivate a strong sense of belonging and align individual efforts with group objectives. They build high-performing teams by prioritizing trust, transparency, and emotional connection in everyday interactions communication leadership = ability to influence, motivate, and guide others through clear, persuasive, and purposeful communication. These leaders adapt their message to various audiences, use storytelling effectively, and deliver with authenticity. They bridge gaps between vision and execution through compelling presentations and dialogue influential leadership = art of gaining support and alignment through trust, logic, and emotional intelligence. These leaders persuade through clarity, confidence, and collaboration rather than authority. Influence is built on relationships, active listening, and the ability to connect personal motivations to broader goals principled leadership = making decisions aligned with core values, even when unpopular. It emphasizes integrity, fairness, and accountability. These leaders prioritize the greater good over convenience, handle resistance with empathy, and remain transparent to maintain trust in ethically complex situations 4 20250827 17:05-18:00 1.5 active Debriefing questions Christine Lagarde: You Have To Pick Your Fights And Really Persist By the end of this session you will have studied Christine Lagarde: You Have To Pick Your Fights And Really Persist → watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p1wJhUjINk zoom_meeting.png Zoom meeting details Meeting ID: 736 3734 5149 Passcode: VhP32d https://us04web.zoom.us/j/73637345149?pwd=9XbxDC1Zm8liOLa6Q1HQRtaqnUaYQS.1 ]]> Bottoms Up - JH B2 Preparing for professional mobility 3 2 Debriefing questions Describing strengths edit_ol_qa prep_ol_qa active Answer the following questions. What are your strengths? ✓ fast to integrate → hit the ground running ✓ top-to-bottom structuring ✓ mentoring ✓ ability to learn on the go → agile approach ✓ building & leading a team ✓ undertaking ambitious tasks ✓ having a strategic vision → understand the big picture to assess a roadmap ✓ being results oriented → adjust work-life balance depending on urgency → be loyal to people ✓ spanning both hard & soft skills ✓ give concrete examples → provide tangible data, statistics, metrics that whet the appetite & prompt follow-up questions How well are you able to collaborate with other depts? ✓ attended training in cross-functional collaboration ✓ had to work with teams across different regions, time zones, corporate cultures... → consider yourself more as a team player / team leader ✓ focus on scale ✓ mention any relevant training What is your most recent success story? ✓ focus on a real success with company-wide impact rather than a minor but more recent one ✓ give metrics How can you make use of your Russian experience & leverage it abroad? ✓ local business practice sometimes more effective than best practices abroad ✓ greater flexibility or different management behaviour of your corporate environment could be a source of inspiration ✓ build brand awareness ✓ transfer technologies to leverage = to influence people and get the results you want What is the pool of competing candidates? ✓ explain how you would be able to adapt better, faster... (based on your experience) → stress why you are a good match for this company 2 to liaise /lɪˈeɪz/ = to speak to people in other organizations, etc. in order to work with them or exchange information with them; to be the link between two or more people, organizations, etc to whet the appetite = to increase desire for or interest in sth 1 hearing listening to people ]]>