Introduction. The world stands at a tipping point. From geopolitical tensions to climate change, from the depletion of natural resources to the loss of biodiversity, the challenges are immense. The consequences – including growing migration flows, social unrest, and economic uncertainty – demand decisive leadership. The question is whether the superpowers, such as the United States, China, and Russia, and to a lesser extent India and Brazil, are willing or able to lead the world collectively towards a peaceful and sustainable future. So far, they seem to act more as obstacles than as solutions. This article explores why this is the case and what is needed to turn the tide.
Geopolitical Tensions and the Ecological Crisis. Today’s global problems are human-made. The economic growth of recent decades has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, but it has also caused large-scale environmental damage, global overpopulation, and growing inequality. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been warning for years that the world must take a more ecologically responsible path to avoid catastrophic consequences. Yet many governments, particularly those of the superpowers, lag behind in fulfilling their climate commitments. Nor are they actively addressing other major issues such as looming overpopulation, biodiversity loss, or resource depletion, aside from securing their own national interests.
Geopolitical competition between nations, such as tensions between China and the US or Russia and Europe, often takes precedence over long-term challenges. This rivalry causes stagnation within institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, which are specifically designed to promote cooperation. A striking example is the blocking of UN resolutions by vetoes from permanent members of the Security Council.
World Leaders: Power or Responsibility? World leaders are expected to guide humanity towards stability and sustainability. Platforms such as the G7, G20, and the UN provide opportunities to find collective solutions. However, many world leaders appear more focused on advancing their national interests than on addressing global challenges.
In recent years, Russia has repeatedly demonstrated its expansionist ambitions, such as the annexation of Crimea, the partial occupation of Georgia, and the invasion of Ukraine. China is pursuing increasingly aggressive policies regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea. Meanwhile, the United States, particularly under former President Trump, showed a willingness to withdraw from international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord. President-elect Trump also expressed claims of interest in territories such as Panama, Greenland, and Canada. These actions highlight how superpowers often prioritise national power and influence over the necessity of taking responsibility for global policies.
Constructive Models: Lessons We Can Learn. Despite the dominance of superpowers, there are geopolitical systems that focus on active supranational cooperation between nations. The European Union (EU) offers a positive alternative. Over the past eighty years, the EU has united 27 countries in a peace and cooperation model that combines economic growth with conflict prevention. Although not without internal tensions, the EU has proven that peaceful collaboration is possible among former rivals like France and Germany.
Elsewhere, regional alliances are also emerging. In Africa, the African Union (AU) has contributed to stability and economic progress by focusing on African solutions to African problems. The ASEAN countries in Asia collaborate on economic and cultural issues, fostering stability in a diverse region.
These examples demonstrate that collaboration among nations, even with differing interests, can yield positive results. This raises the question of why superpowers do not follow such models.
How Can It Be Different? The current dominance of superpowers in institutions like the UN and IMF often hampers progress. Reforming these institutions is essential. One possible approach is to strengthen supranational bodies where all countries are more equally represented, perhaps granting greater influence to regional entities such as the EU, AU, and ASEAN, and limiting the use of vetoes. Additionally, superpowers should strengthen international justice systems by recognising institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC), even for themselves, to set an example.
Internally, superpowers must rethink their policies. They need to realise that their current rivalry can only produce losers – for humanity, the environment, and ultimately themselves. This requires focusing more on sustainable development, abandoning expansionist ambitions, and taking an active role in global collaboration. True leadership demands responsibility that transcends national interests. Superpowers must work to gain the trust of smaller nations and prevent catastrophes rather than exacerbating problems.
Conclusion. The challenges of the 21st century demand collaboration, vision, and courage. Superpowers have the resources and influence to drive positive change, but their current priorities and national focus often conflict with the global need for common solutions to major world issues such as sustainability, climate change, biodiversity loss, overpopulation, and overconsumption.
Regional cooperation models, such as the EU, AU, and ASEAN, offer hope. It is up to the superpowers to take these examples seriously and strive for a trustworthy form of leadership that is not based on power but on global responsibility and cooperation. Without such a shift, the world risks descending into escalating chaos – a scenario that offers no good prospects, even for the superpowers themselves.
