16 Sep On Economic Geopolitics as Dispersion of Efforts
By,
Prof. José J. Sanmartín, Senior Fellow | Europe Liaison, MSI²
Introduction
It is generally assumed that what is truly relevant—what is genuinely substantive—lies beneath the surface, whether in a fact or hypothesis, in data or theory. However, there are many occasions when the apparent is, in fact, the real… it is just that some operators ignore this reality. The “apparent” often resides more in the analyst than in the analyzed. Information never deceives; it is the approach, the perspective, that does.
Ideologies (political or otherwise), prejudices (personal or otherwise), provide fertile ground for analytical delusions. So too do distorting—and dangerous—elements such as ego, narcissism, and arrogance, which profoundly affect analysts and intellectuals.
Yet, the most harmed by these—truly irreversible—damages are the false analysts and counterfeit intellectuals. False and counterfeit; they are not the same. Here lies the fall of the empire of ideas. The most absurd interpretations of geopolitics or economics come from those who claim the title of analyst and/or intellectual…without truly being one. To achieve that status, indispensable conditions include humility and lifelong learning. The ability to detect one’s own mistakes and correct them is a core requirement for any professional in analysis, research, or foresight. Self-satisfaction—even when free of pride—intellectually kills those who practice it. Hence, the analytical collapse that afflicts too many feverish minds, incapable of understanding reality in any domain—be it economic, political, cultural, social, or otherwise. For these moribund epigones, attempting even to explain a reality they do not comprehend and that overwhelms them is impossible. They are permanent residents in mental mortuaries of radical ideologies, irrational phobias, and emotional prejudices to justify their missteps. They confuse political wishes of what they would like reality to be with the facts of what actually occurs. They sell smoke, buy time; all in vain, all trivial.
From Individual Initiative to Shared Blockage
In its bulletin dated September 2, 2025, among other relevant information, Geopolitical Futures reported crucial developments, such as the reaffirmation of Chinese leadership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Evidence of this is the proposal by the current leader Xi Jinping, known as the Global Governance Initiative. According to Geopolitical Futures, this “plan” is centered on points such as “adherence to international law, support for multilateralism, rejection of double standards, and equal participation in global governance regardless of a country’s size or power.”
This seemingly laudable position conceals vulnerabilities such as the very definition of a “country,” the embedding of legality, and even the omission of genuine political freedom. Here lies the core of the disinformative intoxication distilled from indifference to democracy.
The current ten member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization define a powerful operational line; economic geopolitics has here a vector of expansion. One must also consider the foreseeable addition of more countries to this organization; the numerous “partner” states (several of which already have de facto associate status) form the largest market in the world. This is primarily an intergovernmental link; in the current context, attempting even a basic degree of supranationality among member states would be unfeasible. Going beyond an association of sovereign states could even be counterproductive. Nor would the hypothetical complete merger of Russia and Belarus count as an asset in geopolitics at present. The two brother countries would lose another card to play in international relations.
Furthermore, at the general level of the Shanghai Organization, the conjunction and coordination of economic, productive, and commercial synergies collide head-on with the national priorities of several member states.
Most of the countries adhering to Shanghai are not democratic states. It is a club which, in its present momentum, offers fewer lights than shadows regarding the future. Any democracy, by virtue of being one (even with its imperfections), is far superior to the sum of authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes. Such prevalence, of course, is neither considered from Shanghai nor expected… for now. A grave error, given that the economy ultimately always requires moderate forms of institutional governance and social integration. By severing political freedom in a draconian manner, this organization loses a source of in crescendo legitimacy. That is, a group of statesmen—even those with authoritarian tendencies—could have enabled a transactional path to extend expectations of improvement indefinitely… and manage power during that ethereal period. Meanwhile, a growing tolerance within the country would facilitate social and entrepreneurial development, because without an organized civil society and a productive business culture, there is no sustainable economic growth. Hybrid dictatorships (formal and unenforceable rule-of-law frameworks shaping vocationally authoritarian regimes) endure thanks to the disarticulation of civil society and the weakness of the private sector.
A protocol for convergence on the basic parameters of state recognition is subtly excluded from this Initiative. A paradigmatic case is Taiwan as a whole for the current People’s Republic of China, or part of Ukrainian territory for Russia. In a coherent and relentless line, the Initiative seeks non-interference in the internal affairs of each member state by third parties (whether governmental or non-governmental).
Transversality as a Necessity
Governing is reforming; what is constructive prevails when it comes to enduring, over time, in power. The promotion of irrationality, driven by certain political regimes within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, establishes medium-term instability parameters, sometimes even earlier. In politics, experiments are done with soda, in minimal quantities. The activation of highly aggravating emotional levers has generated a rigid political subculture based on exclusions and aversions, which will soon spiral out of control; not even the state will be able to contain this wild force embedded in the social mindset. The phobic politics disseminated over recent years in several Shanghai member states has created a social magma prone to instability; a specific crisis—economic or otherwise—would trigger the process. This predicts internal shocks and broader problems. Apparent stability will be severely undermined. No one wants such a scenario; neither there nor here—wherever we may be. Paradoxically, only Western experts could redirect the situation and solve the emerging conflict issues that are bound to arise. If the toxic sources of this serious pathology are not detected, corrected, and mitigated, the crisis will worsen, with devastating effects on the state, not just the government.
Urgent corrective actions are required against practices of political Manichaeism, corruption spreading from executive ranks, the projection of emotional prejudices from power, and so forth. All of these are inciting mechanisms for extremist groups willing to resort to conflict. As Master Rudé explained, the masses become aware of their destructive power and don the uniform of violence. An unmanageable number of errors have been committed at the advisory level for rulers in Russia or China, for instance. The time has come to correct these operational flaws to ensure truly full social peace and political stability that supports the prosperity of civil society.
Indicators also suggest a reasonable probability of economic stagnation based on the arguments presented here. China and Russia, among other countries, need the West. Only the West possesses the medicine for this illness. Any changes to be implemented must be harmonized with national traditions; of course, the West should not impose its own institutional or moral structure. The goal is to heal a specific wound through technical, not political, solutions. Sincere respect and proper courtesy are an inescapable obligation. Equally necessary is attending—as far as feasible—to the status needs that counterparts may have. Engagement between the West and Russia can be more effectively pursued through concrete steps rather than through grandiose institutional declarations.
In line with the above, overly ambitious treaties are not advisable at this time; rather, sectoral negotiations for specific domains are preferable. Grandiosity is not the home of solutions. Vladimir Putin has communicated this—through his actions, not just words. The current Russian leader communicates through symbols, ideas, and deeds, not always accompanied by verbal explanations. If the other party understands what he is conveying, Putin will maintain dialogue at the appropriate level. Understanding Putin’s language, like that of other leaders, remains a pending task for many Western governments. This decisively limits the capacities and possibilities of the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and other Western allies to interact efficiently with other powers. Western countries must exercise humility to adapt to political languages that have long been foreign to them.
Transversality is the expression of excellent and sophisticated political intelligence. The Shanghai group has lost this reinforcing source, which reflects the internal vulnerabilities of an organization that can barely guarantee loyal and complete collaboration—not even among its members—in times of national crises. They are united by negativity, not by positivity. Here lies another absolute weakness. The hostility of some of its members toward the European Union or NATO, as well as toward any other international organization with a Western imprint, should come as no surprise. A Southern Atlantic NATO led by Western democracies would provide greater security in Ibero-America and other emerging African countries. Through preferential agreements in an initial and long-term phase, for example, a network could be woven to confer political and economic stability.
Discontinuity in Geopolitics Subtracts, It Does Not Add
Europeanism as an ideal has endowed Europe with stability through two world wars in the first half of the 20th century; it is worth remembering. The aversion to the European Union expressed even by some Western leaders is an act more befitting the twilight of the gods. Wagnerian grandeur has no place in 21st-century Europe, nor beyond. Of course, the EU must improve, eradicating bad practices and multiple poor actions. The European Union cannot impose its vision of life and the world on anyone unwilling to accept it. Even within European borders, numerous dissenters exist against the doctrine officially but spuriously endorsed by Brussels. Dialogue, again, and understanding, always. Even more so in sacred spaces, such as family and personal moral decisions.
Reasonable questioning—based on facts—of measures adopted in Brussels cannot mean the disappearance or incapacitation of the international organization that has made Europe part of the solution, not part of the problem. A war between European Union member states is materially impossible. This hypothesis appears absurd on its own terms. Here is a not insignificant achievement; any country integrated into the EU is deactivated as a threat to other member states. On the contrary, it becomes an a priori ally. Disagreements, even conflicts, within the Union are inherent to an intergovernmental system based on negotiation and agreement. Washington needs the EU, which in turn necessitates the discreet modulation of its stance in this regard. The EU is a fundamental ally of the Western fraternity. Weakening Europe entails the loss—for the United States and other powers—of strategic dividends of first importance.
Under the aegis of sovereignty and independence, Shanghai countries seek to maintain the continuity of their political regimes. The fear of instability casts a dark shadow over their leaders. Everything affecting order—primarily domestic—constitutes their sword of Damocles. The need for freedoms for civil society emerges variably in all cases. The vast democracy of India can offer better domestic security guarantees than “soft” or “hard” authoritarian systems. Concentration of power in a single source entails absolute risk. An intelligent measure of India’s institutional architecture has been the traditional scale of powers and counter-powers, along with the constellation of governments at various levels (territorial, political, etc.). This apparent fragmentation of power is, in fact, not such; the diversity that defines the great nation of India is reflected in a tangentially Berlinian pluralism.
Hybrid dictatorships—all of them, to varying degrees of their Machiavellianism—are based on a manipulated and manipulative reading of positive freedom. The greater the centralization of power, the higher the risks. Internal conflicts are incentivized under this single omniscient core of potestas. A “soft” but precise coup, a single conspiracy, and the incumbent leader would be stripped of their primacy. Here lies another new source of potential instability—not only institutional—in hybrid dictatorships.
A weak point in concentrated-power regimes lies in their inability to react to a sudden, disruptive internal crisis. For example, this would occur if a public affront to prevailing ideological dogmas were made or a military protest arose against alleged or real grievances. The same applies if the hybrid dictatorship could no longer provide some (not necessarily all) of the basic dividends it had previously delivered. Order, food, institutional stability, border security, or quality public services (particularly healthcare, transport, education), among other factors, constitute the first barometer for citizens. Before revolts, before revolutions, price collapses for sellers, spectacular price hikes for buyers, patrimonial losses, food scarcity, lack of basic goods, and a long itinerary of shortages eroded a decent life among people who had reached their limit.
A Gradualist Reformism
As long as the economy functions reasonably and ideological theology continues to have more believers than “agnostics,” the hybrid dictatorship will be able to keep buying time. Because it exists on a lease, not a property. The termination of that lease can occur at the most unexpected moment. The existence of grassroots democratic movements is a warning to navigators. The intelligent course of action would be to steer a liberalization of political structures; the prudent course would be to enable a cushioning system that allows the transition toward a more tolerant and open regime. Gradualism is the path of the wise.
The granting of economic freedoms, to varying degrees, will never fully satisfy personal autonomy. Freedom is not a restrictive gift graciously bestowed; it is inherent to the person, to every person. For family prosperity, business growth, and productive network creation to flourish in an orderly and growing manner, political freedom must exist alongside economic freedom. It is only a matter of time before China must face the Aristotelian challenge generated by its immense development: the formation of a mesocracy demanding its place in the sun. And not only China.
Currently, the application of a renewed economic geopolitics by China and its allied states is evident in the progressive colonization of high-value economic spaces; in the medium and long term, these allies form part of a power bloc that needs to expand. The conquest of the financial sector, for instance, is a lever derived from this elastic adaptation of doctrine, coming from economic intelligence, on the new geopolitics of power. Among the objectives is the need to isolate the United States, turning it into an individualistic power, inward-looking, and weakening the support of its natural allies. NATO and other Western organizations would be reduced to minimally operative shells.
Moreover, preeminence in decisive economic sectors makes China an unavoidable partner. The creation of dependency toward China has been a subtly cultivated mechanism over recent decades. One of the consequences of this new economic geopolitics is to provoke renewed isolationism in the United States: leaving Washington defenseless without support from massive alliances of allied countries. The talent of Chinese leaders is commendable (for being well conceived in the East) and worthy of study (for being poorly understood in the West). However, even if the plan was impeccably designed, its implementation reveals anomalies. Hence, the persistent negative effect on China’s own economy: creating these dependencies heavily impacts its internal capacities. China cannot sustain such efforts indefinitely. Its current support for Putin’s Russia carries a huge cost for future stability; even graver is the debt it has contracted to finance expansion in Africa, Latin America, and other strategic points, in line with China’s economic geopolitics.
The geopolitical-economic designs applied by Chinese leaders—guided by their geostrategic gurus—lead to an already inevitable crisis. Shanghai, within the hybrid dictatorship trajectory, is moving toward a dead end. Russia would benefit from diversifying its economy and foreign policy as soon as possible. The same applies to other member states of the Cooperation Organization. It is noteworthy that India, a democracy, has better prospects for the future, surprising many experts. India has high-quality export diversification and growing technological capacity that sustains its industries (not merely to display power). Less is more. Savings and investment are engines of lasting, positive change.
Conclusion
The worsening of relations between Europe and the United States, or between the United States and Canada, only benefits their adversaries. The same applies to the loss of leadership in organizations located in other regions that are strategic for Washington. Latin America is a painful reality in this regard. The emergence of openly anti-democratic maximalism, and above all, the perception of inaction by democratic forces, has consolidated hybrid dictatorships beyond what was foreseeable or desirable. The problem with these authoritarian regimes is that they deny their true nature and lie to society until their last political breath. The construction of ideological theology forms the basis of their power. Dogmas, sins, and punishments are part of the penitential glossary of such a repressive kleptocracy. Formal discourse assertively claims freedom, “their” freedom. From such pagan and dictatorial theology, only acolytes have certain limited political rights. The functional and recognized populace consists of the most irredeemable and even fanatical believers. The rest of the citizens… are not. The hieratic politicization of society produces victims everywhere. The first three victims are justice, truth, and honor.
The paleoconservative concept of country-to-country agreements, to the detriment of coalitions and organizations, has limits in the conflictual international status quo. Predictable scenarios recommend the reconstruction of stable and firm alliances with reliable partners for the United States; NATO must be strengthened, and this should be done equitably by all member states. The historical situation of comparative grievance—where some contributed more to common defense than others—must not be repeated. Freedom has a price that all partners must bear. Egoism is neither a diplomatic nor a political category. The security of some is the security of all. Businesses, companies, families, and the middle class need stability and tranquility, in both the West and the East. This is a broad area of agreement with shared interests. Perhaps it is time to maximize Kissinger’s formulation regarding incentives for moderation. The economy, in this context, can be a vector of reconciliation among Western powers, China, Russia, and all states that wish to join a future of prosperity rather than instability. Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman already paved the way, step by step. It is about adding, while preserving—always and everywhere—justice, truth, and honor. A country cannot be humiliated, even when there seem to be reasons for it. Atavistic taboos are not circumstantial—Ortega y Gasset dixit. Justice, truth, and honor.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute (MSI²).