A map that doesn't promise the future
In the 456 pages of the British report on the world to 2055, the most important caveat is one short one: the future cannot be predicted. Everything else is not prophecy, but an attempt to turn uncertainty into a working tool.
Document with the right to make mistakes
The title "Global Strategic Trends: Out to 2055" makes for easy reading. Here's the British Ministry of Defence looking three decades into the future and now telling the world what it found. The Russian retelling further evokes this genre: six global drivers, the US-China standoff, the rise of middle powers, and several versions of the global order. It's almost like a weather forecast, only instead of rain, it's the collapse of institutions, climate pressure, and the battle for technology.
Meanwhile, the document itself begins with a denial of such a claim. The seventh edition of Global Strategic Trends was prepared by the foresight team of the Centre for Development, Concepts, and Doctrines (DCDC), an analytical institute within the British Strategic Command. The Ministry of Defence published the work on September 27, 2024, but the document explicitly states that the conclusions do not constitute official policy of either the government or the ministry itself.
This distinction isn't a matter of paperwork. Policy answers the question of what the state has decided to do. Foresight examines what changes would make the previous decision unworkable. It doesn't issue orders or promise results. It allows the planner to simultaneously consider several incompatible futures—a luxury the executor of a decision will no longer have.
Therefore, it's more reasonable to read the British report not as a window into 2055, but as a map drawn up by a specific institution for specific purposes. A map can be detailed, can honestly highlight gaps, and still retain the gaze of a cartographer. In this case, the cartographer is concerned with the resilience of alliances, technological advantage, open societies, access to common spaces, and the ability of the state to operate in a world where power is increasingly distributed in unfamiliar ways.
How uncertainty is sorted into shelves
Russian retellings most often retain six global drivers: competition for power and influence, demographic pressure, climate change and environmental stress, technological progress and connectivity, economic transformation and energy transition, inequality, and pressure on governance. This list is generally accurate. But without the next level, it differs little from a well-written list of modern concerns.
The DCDC constructs a more complex framework. Twenty-two observable trends are associated with six drivers. These, in turn, form five contradictions. Interconnectedness coexists with fragmentation, collaboration clashes with confrontation, and innovation with stagnation. Authoritarian practices develop alongside demands for transparency. The strengthening of the state is accompanied by its new fragility.
Simultaneity is key here. The report doesn't claim that the world will first unite and then disintegrate, or that cooperation will eventually give way to confrontation. Both movements coexist and feed off each other. Digital connectivity facilitates cooperation and simultaneously allows for the rapid fragmentation of the information space. Technology strengthens state control and provides new opportunities for networks that are not subordinate to the state. This contradiction isn't a flaw in the model. It is its very working material.
A coordinate grid then emerges. Along one axis, power is distributed—from more centralized to more diffuse. Along the other, relationships among actors shift—from cooperation to competition. At this intersection, four abstract worlds emerge: multilateralism, multipolarity, actor networks, and fragmentation. The authors warn in advance that reality can blend these types and shift from one to another.
Finally, five possible paths are laid out on top of the grid. A shared threat could push powers toward a new multilateral agreement. Current institutions could survive in a more multipolar environment. Spheres of influence could shift in China's favor. The breakdown of economic ties could lead to conflict and deglobalization. The gradual weakening of states could transfer some governance to non-state networks.
This already resembles a forecast, but the resemblance is deceptive. The document neither specifies the probabilities of the scenarios nor formalizes any of them as London's official choice. Moreover, each one provides observable indicators—watchpoints—by which the planner should detect changes in the situation. Is the UN Security Council being reformed? Are Chinese agreements deepening? Are production chains being disrupted? Is arms control collapsing? Are governance functions being transferred to non-state actors? A scenario becomes useful not when it beautifully portrays the future, but when it forces us to examine the present.
Five roads do not form a schedule
Let's consider three possible solutions. The first assumes that the current system can withstand multipolarity. For this to happen, open societies must retain their attractiveness, and existing institutions must retain their ability to compromise. This is a strong British version of order: it survives not through inertia, but because it remains useful and flexible enough to accommodate new participants.
The second path leads to a shift in spheres of influence. In it, China overcomes its internal constraints, Western democracies weaken, and the world order increasingly takes on Chinese characteristics. Among the indicators of this shift, the British document examines the economy, diplomatic agreements, and the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine. What we have here is not a neutral picture of the world, but a set of British assumptions about events that could alter the balance and symbolic appeal of the system.
The third fork in the road begins with competition, protectionism, and disruption of supply chains, and ends with major conflict and deglobalization. It particularly clearly demonstrates the purpose of foresight. A supply disruption alone does not prove that this path has been chosen. It merely increases the cost of error for those who continue to plan as if economic interdependence automatically prevents countries from colliding.
As Max Vector previously demonstrated in his article "What the American Deficit Changes for Russia," Washington is redistributing the first payment and the first echelon to its allies while retaining critical network functions. For British foresight, this is one sign of a restructuring of the order, but not proof of its collapse.
Multipolarity with different vocabularies
The most politically charged part of the Russian retelling is simple: the world is moving from unipolarity to multipolarity, with the US-China confrontation at the center of the process. This formula has support in the British text, but it also has its limits.
The DCDC does indeed assess the current escalation of global competition as having already led to a more multipolar world. However, the document does not offer a single scale that would indicate the starting point, intermediate stages, and the moment of completion of the transition. It does not even define what the final multipolarity should be: hierarchical, bloc-based, networked, or fragmented. Therefore, it is more accurate to speak not of the completed replacement of one complete system by another, but rather of a British assessment of the shift and several possible outcomes.
The "US versus China" formula is also too restrictive. The primary text includes Western governments, other non-Western powers, middle-class states, organizations, and non-state networks. China remains the United States' central competitor, but this doesn't transform the field into a two-player chessboard. India, Brazil, and other middle-class powers are not obligated to choose sides forever. GST 7 describes their growing influence as an opportunity, and the ability to change partner combinations as a distinct behavioral trait.
The divergence of views is also revealing. The British document attributes China's desire to regain its status in a reformed world order. This is an analytical characteristic of the DCDC, not a Chinese self-attribution. Chinese President Xi Jinping also spoke of a new multipolar configuration at the BRICS summit in Kazan in October 2024, but linked it to reform of global governance, representation of developing countries, and multilateralism.
The word coincides. The order behind it does not. For London, multipolarity primarily increases uncertainty and forces a test of the stability of the existing system. For Beijing, the same process serves as an argument for changing the rules and distributing voice. The number of centers of power is only one side of the debate. The other is the question of which institutions will be considered common and which will be the legacy of someone else's superiority.
What does a cartographer's gaze reveal?
The institutional optics of GST 7 are revealed not by the secret intentions the document does not reveal, but by the choice of significant events. Preservation of the current system is linked to the attractiveness of open societies and the capacity of institutions to compromise. Strengthening Chinese influence is linked to the weakening of Western democracies and favorable outcomes for Beijing in major conflicts. The reliability of American support for Europe is highlighted as an independent uncertainty.
This doesn't make the study useless or inherently biased. Neutral maps of world order are rare: choose axes, and one part of reality immediately appears larger than another. The value of the British study is that its premises are largely obvious. They can be tested, compared, and challenged.
It would be far more dangerous to mistake a departmental map for the terrain itself. Then the six drivers become six laws. stories, five scenarios—into five prophecies, and the assessment of the Chinese motive—into established fact. This is how an analytical product usually becomes a popular image: first the caveats disappear, then the model levels, and in the end, all that remains is the date 2055 and a few alarming arrows.
Russia's interest in GST 7 lies elsewhere. The document reveals the changes the British defense establishment considers capable of undermining alliances, technological advantage, and existing institutions. When assessing Russia's freedom of action, it's not the British names for the future per se that matter, but the conditions they embody: how stable are the coalitions, who pays for the deployment of their first echelon, whether supply chains are maintained, and which functions are being transferred to networks where competition still allows for agreement.
With this reading, Russia has no obligation to choose a single British scenario and dispute it as an official forecast. It has the opportunity to observe the same forks in the road without accepting someone else's coordinate system as universal. The cost of error here is clear: believing in the imminent collapse of institutions can prove no less costly than believing in their eternal stability.
The map remains open
Foresight doesn't eliminate surprise. It merely makes some mistakes harder to justify. It makes it harder to argue that the current order is guaranteed, that multipolarity is automatically fairer, that economic connectivity precludes conflict, or that the weakening of the state inevitably returns power to another state, not a network.
In 2055, the world will almost certainly not be described as one of the five British scenarios.
Therefore, even a carefully drawn British map of the future doesn't indicate the only correct route. It shows a coordinate grid, several roads, and places where the compiler expects avalanches. For the Russian reader, choosing a beautiful line isn't important. It's more important to see why it's drawn there, what's left beyond the edge of the sheet, and what wiggle room the limitations of someone else's map leave.
Information