Thomas Gomart Who Controls Whom The New Global Balance Of Power

So welcome and thank you to everybody. It’s great privilege for us that you’re here. So American geopolitical thinker Robert Kaplan used to say that understanding world events begins with maps and ends with Shakespeare. Uh our version is different. Basically understanding world events begins and ends with our geopolitical talks because we’re trying to invent to invite really an interesting people uh who are trying to basically uh give a much deeper strategic perspective of what is happening in the world uh and what we can expect. We have been doing this almost a decade together with the Austrian Ministry of Defense. uh and this is a great uh great privilege for me to introduce uh Tom Gumar and I’m saying this for many reasons and I’m going to say something about him but I do believe that French view particularly on some of the major loot events was slightly missing from our conversations. We have quite a lot of Americans and Brits coming here basically some of them made a great career after being here. Two weeks after being here, Bill Burns became the head of CIA, Thomas Bagger became the state secretary for the German foreign ministry. So I was joking that I don’t know what is uh going to be for Tom. uh but uh but the interesting perspective uh from French story is that first of all you have a really different school of strategic thinking based on particularities of French history including the kind of a surprising and devastating defeat in the World War II. the only European Union member states which basically has a nuclear weapon which is changing very much where basically they’re seeing the world. colonial history and very violent history of decolonization which was also shaping the way from this point of view France was to be much more global than many of the countries particularly central uh European countries and in this tradition uh uh I do believe Tomai is really standing as one of the really outstanding voices in the debate uh in the last seven years he managed to publish five books which he really did well he was the only civilian that was part of the group that was working on the latest military doctrine uh uh of France. uh he was part of all major debates on foreign policy that was taking place and probably he’s going to tell you more than this but uh several years ago probably three years ago he did something that very few of us have been doing he basically went on one of the French fat uh and and they stayed with them for months in the Indo-Pacific and Mediterranean to try to see the world from the point of view of a very much a navy officer trying to see this maritime perspective which is very much missing. So I’m saying this because at least I do believe we know Raymon Aron and some of this type of a thinking in the French tradition. So allow me to introduce Tomar. He’s going to talk his last book is who controls whom and we’re going to get the answer. Uh he’s going to speak probably for 30 minutes then for 15 minutes I’ll try to ask some questions. Uh and then we’re going to come to you. So to my real pleasure to be here

by the way he’s director he’s director of the French institute for international relations I forgot the institutional uh the institutional kind of a part of it but it’s a quite important because it’s a really important player in the French foreign policy thinking. Thank you very much uh Ian for your kind introduction and for your invitation. and I’m very glad to uh participate in these talks at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. That’s the first time. I I hope it won’t be the last time. We will see at the end of the presentation. And thank you very much for for joining um this um presentation tonight and very happy to to have the opportunity to discuss with with you um after the presentation. Um I I Ian very kindly said you know I published five uh books in the last um seven years for one reason which is a sense of urgency and uh the fact that um I I do think that we we enter a new area it’s not very uh it’s it’s it’s something very well known but um I was very indeed struck by my uh personal experience within the committee uh which designed the U strategic review in 2017 just after the election of President Mron and uh this document uh was made in for three very intense months and um at the end of this uh of this collective work. uh I decided in fact to to go towards a larger readership and to explain that uh unfortunately our strategic environment was very fast moving and not in the proper direction. So I will try to to explain to you the analytical framework I used uh and after that I will focus on the last book which is yes who controls womb and um to not to to sum up the book but much more to use each chapter and to try to updates this chapter to the current situation. So let’s start with the global analytical framework I tried to use in the in the five last books. The very first one is to identify two trends. The first one is the acceleration of the environmental deterioration, global warming, loss of biodiversity and pollution. And the second one is a propagation uh of technologies. and I belong to those who think that the second trend is not the response to the first one. So that opens the debate on solutionism which is in my opinion something highly important to anticipate the future positioning of Europe by comparison with the US and China. Second, I do believe that the most important issue of our time remain the same than in history which is uh war or peace. Uh and um I think that unfortunately we are in Europe coming back to a new period maybe new sort of war of warfare in particular but um the area in which I was educated the idea that peace was in touch with what we call a community. I think that this area is unfortunately finishing and so we should prepare ourself to the new area and to prepare ourel how to avoid the war um which is coming. The third uh elements is in fact that uh interdependence are more and more important and every type of interdependence is asymmetrical. So it really depends in the abstract term around your positioning regarding each inter interdependence. So with these three um uh main elements of framework my intellectual ambition in this five books was in fact in fact sorry double the first one is to try all the time to discern the others intentions because I do think that strategy is first of all a psychological exercise. So what is the most important things to do is to better understand you know the overs what is said and what is unsaid in his uh strategic mindset. And second, I do think that um alterity remains the art of international relations and maybe we have forgotten this concept of alterity thinking especially in Europe that all the world wanted to live the same way than um we used and it’s not the case and uh on that certainly I I was very uh um how to say that desire to some extent or influenced by my Russian experience. I met with Ian many times in in Russia. I was uh partly educated there and of course it is in Russia that um I understood I think before 2012 the new trajectory of the so-called globalization but uh I will be back on that. So that’s the the elements for analytical framework. Um it took me three days to change areas and it was uh in last it was sorry in February 2025 that’s the first sentence of this book and let me try to explain oh in three days I had uh this feeling and it was three days uh I was in Munich and in Sony north part of of Paris which is a very particular city in France because Sandoni is uh one of the poorest city in France. It is one of the most ethnically diversified uh city and it is also very strange because you have a cathedral with the rest of kings of France. You have the stadium which is very popular and you have also the legender which is a school of education for young lady for the families who who were awarded by leandon which is the most important uh order since Napoleon. So that’s very particular city in France. So day one I was at the Munich security conference listening to uh in the room listening to the speech made by uh vice president JD Vance. You know certainly this uh this speech which was very famous because uh bluntly vice president said to Europeans your problem is not Russia your problem is your migrants. And second, he refused to meet with uh Chancellor um Schultz at that time and preferred to meet with the leader of IFD. And in PTO, listening to GD Vance, I had the feeling to be in Moscow in 2012 because it was the same type of argument which was uh made by some Russian colleagues since many years. The day after in the bookshop of the conference I listened to the presentation made by Timothy Snder which is well known in this institution and Snder told something very um directly to the audience to say be careful Europeans because you will be attacked on freedom of speech by this administration uh which does want to dismantle DCA and DMA all the legislation to try to um regulate um information and day three. So it was uh on Sunday uh I went to Sandon for one reason. It was the uh episcopal ordination of Morin who is 48 years old. And it was very strange because uh it was very very it was like a rock star arriving you know in Sandon with um people in the tents just in front of the uh cathedral Catholic and completely different from the Catholic people in the room in Munich listening to G events. And one of the argument of the book is in fact that we face in my opinion a transatlantic schism on Catholicism and I will try to explain u why. So in parallel this this um personal uh experience um I read different things and during these days I I had I read two writers very important to me but completely different you will understand why the first one is const the lover or jam destal for who we know his life and banjama con is one of the key writer for political liberalism. He passed away in 1830. I will be back on that. But for Baja Constance, the most important thing it is individual liberties and public liberties which should prevail in any circumstances and for him the objective of politics is to put away tyranny. He was strongly against Napoleon, by the way, paid by Bernardo to do so. That’s another story. Um, but it is really this idea that tyranny should be um get away and we should protect ourself against tyranny. And the second writer is uh Vladimir Olenov. And for there are two very important things. The first one is party discipline. Why? Because I was very struck by the consistent reference made by presidency to chishki you know who wrote this this uh book uh dilat and which was a very direct and strong influence on linen. And for instance uh during his speech at the Kazan summit in October 2024 presidency referred many times to Chanvski and to Lenin and for Lenin the aim of the objective of politics is to destroy the enemy. So I think that we are still observing an ongoing debate or maybe an ongoing fight between political liberalism and new forms of leninism because this party discipline is very visible in different organization. I will be back on I will be back on that. And the other thing which explain the title it is a famous question one of the famous question raised by lenin which is ato who is winning you know that’s something you said when you are like that who is winning and I think that this question is very important in international affairs but I rephrase it by who controls room because in an area of inter interdependence Hence it’s more interesting to think about notion of control that notion of pure victory. last um element to to explain the the beginning of of the book. I I read a sentence by const which is uh in in his famous book and the sentence is war and trade are only two ways to reach the same aim which is to possess what you desire. And when I I read this sentence, the book was done because I decided to divide uh the book into three main parts. The first one is war, the second one is trade and the last one is desire. And for each of these uh parts I try to embody international politics by staging six dual uh and to uh present international politics through this uh duel. So for war it’s a duel between Putin and Zelinski. It is also the duel between Netanyahu and Ali Hame who passed away one month ago. For trade, it is the duel between Sinping and Narendra Modi and the one between Donald Trump and Usula Vanderlayion. For desire, it is the duel between the IPCC and Fox News. And last chapter is the duel between the Vatican and the Silicon Valley. So for each of this duel I once again I won’t explain the book but PP to try to extract a few a few points and to try to update them with the current circumstances. So let’s try with Putin and Zeninski. These two guys have only two things in common. Their size. They they’re measured, you know, one meter 70 cm. I don’t say that in English. And the Russian language. That’s all. And they they met only one time. It was in Paris in 2019 when they were gathered by Chancellor um Merkel and President Mron. And when you reread this video, you know, uh, seven years uh, after when you see the body language of Zilinski and Putin at that time, you have already to some extent the um, coming war and the attitude of each of them. So we are we face now an attution war in Ukraine which is for sure the center of gravity of European security. The level of losses is just unthinkable for Europeans who live in peace since uh many decades. I think there are three main points which should be said regarding the current situation. First of all, if you remind and the change of area I have mentioned was also um how to say the the the the attitude in the oval office of President Trump, Vresident Vance and President Zelinski in February 2025 and the humiliation of President Zelinski was very important in the change of the US narrative regarding uh uh Ukraine. What? But what is clear to to me it is the fact that nowadays April 2026, President Zelinski is clearly in a better position internationally than he was in February 2025. Why? Because the the level of Ukrainian resistance is a sort of strategic surprise in a sense. Second, we face uh Russian military inefficiency in Ukraine with a sort of diplomatic efficiency because large part of the world especially in the transactional source I prefer to speak about transactional source rather than global south um blame Russia but decided not to sanction it explaining to us that it is your stuff you know it’s a regional war you were unable to manage Russia properly. Let’s fix things by yourself only. And the third important thing was obviously the change of US attitude and narrative and the fact that to some extent we observe a sort of ideological collusion between the White House and the Kremlin. My conclusion it’s not in the book but that’s a conclusion with report we we made at free with over European colleagues for the coming uh decade. Europeans should prepare themselves to deal more and more by themsel the so-cal historical Russian issue. Let’s move to the second duel between Netanyahu and Ramen. The only coming thing between both men was the fact that um there were they had arm injury. Um Netanyahu after military intervention when he served in the most selective unit of Tal and Hame after an attempt of murder in 18 1980. That’s completely two opposite leaders in terms of education, in terms also of understanding of globalization. Netanyahu is a pure product of globalization. He renounced to his American citizenship to enter Israeli diplomatic service, being appointed very um young after having served in Sal um as the head of the Israelian United Nation mission and was absolutely at home in New York City and in the and in the US. Apparently after 1989, Halee only traveled one time abroad and it was in North Korea. So just this description uh reflects on the complete different mindset of the true guys. So what can be said regarding the current situation? Prime Minister Netanyahu succeeded in convincing President Trump to do what he did not want to do initially which was to bomb Iran in last June. And uh what is absolutely important for the coming years it is there is no example of such a degree of military integration between the US and one of its allies regarding what is happening in Iran right now. that this degree of integration announce possibly a diverence political adverence for the military objective of both countries in the coming months plus the fact that there is more and more criticize in the mega world against Israel so the question is for the next decade the type of political supports from the US to Israel I think it won’t be the same second by contrast there is a sort of Russian military inefficiency in Ukraine and an Israeli military efficiency elsewhere. Of course, the tradition, the political tradition of this military inefficiency and this military efficiency are still in flux. Third almost what is happening in dual blockade is in my opinion absolutely critical for the future of globalization because globalization sounds with maritimizations which sounds with freedom of navigation and to some extent we are in a situation now which is in my opinion I just back from DC where there are of course other analysis but in my opinion we are in the situation which is a real deterioration, strategic deteriorations for westerners because we can after 40 or 40 or 50 days of war. Uh it was possible 50 days ago to cross the street is no more possible and it’s creating a massive macroeconomic crisis everywhere in the world including Europe. So let me move to the second part which is trade starting by the duel between Donald Trump and Usula Vanderlayan. I read a lot and I observe a lot. you know the Tbury agreement in last July which was decided on in Scotland on the Gulf owned by President uh Trump and at that time what is very interesting to be noted it is the fact that it was a political and intellectual victory for the US administration because European leadership accepted the reading of the world war trade proposed by the Trump administration and the agreement was justified by the need to keep the US on board regarding Ukraine. As you may remember, a few weeks after um President Putin was welcome and encouraged by President Trump and a few days after some European leaders visited Donald Trump, including Usula Vanderlayan and President Trump said openly addressing Osuland in this group, you are the most powerful one. Let me move to uh the fourth duel between C and Modi. Uh it’s I think very important to try when we are sitted in Europe to be to try to be less self-focused and to understand that at the global level to put things very bluntly we are more and more provincial. were more and more peripherical and just to to be convinced of that have a look about you know the relation between uh China and India which involve more than three billion of inhabitants and um you know later in his report remind us that in um 1985 when there was a common market India plus China represent 5% of the global GDP. Today it’s 22%. So just these two figure um resumed you know the globalization and the complete emergence of this of these two countries on the international scene and economically the relationship is asymmetrical in two ways in economic uh terms. Um, China represents approximately five times the size of the Indian economy and also in strategic terms. Given the fact that the military efforts made by China since more than four decades create a really imbalance uh with with India. two nuclear powers, two novel powers and two country which were at war not openly but at the limits in 2020 in Himalaya which is one of the less known geopolitical region but one of the most important in my uh opinion for the coming days given also the new tensions between India and Pakistan last April. What is important in terms of anticipation, we have now a very quickly aging population in China and uh India which will become the the third worldwide economy in in the medium run around 2030 as a possibility to use its demographic dividend for the next two decades. So the question is the pos the respective positioning of both countries plus the positioning of India at the global level for the two um next decades. So let me continue with uh the parts dedicated to desire which in the book is presented as a will to power to some extent and as I said I made a chapter on the attention between IPCC and Fox News. So the international panel on climate change was created in

That’s a very interesting body of scientific able to create a scientific consensus reading by a very uh strict methodology almost everything published on global warming and it has become a real actor on the international scene with its uh ability to influence political decision maker but also business uh leaders to some extent. and the Paris agreement in 2015 was clearly uh the the one of the temporary conclusion of the IPCC um consistent work and on the other side you have Fox News which was created in 1996 by Robert Murdoch. The key guy who created uh Fox News was Roger Als who passed away in 2017 and I oppose these two organization because on the one side you have scientific discourse against sort of opinion discourse or an opinion which uh sometimes or quite often use fake news and I think it’s very very important to observe this type of tension because we because of artificial intelligence I should have mentioned also in my introduction the importance of artificial intelligence. But we are more and more in a cognitive uh uh sphere in which fake is more numerous than truth uh true things and the last the last chapter the last dual uh is between Vatican and Silicon Valley. So why I decided to to focus on that? To be honest, I was surprised intellectually and um yes, let’s say upset as a citizen to observe how many leaders political and economic or business leader decided to go for strategy of prostation towards Donald Trump when he was reelected. except one key figure who was Pope Francis during the first mandate of Donald Trump. He was uh he explained things quite directly to the US presidents and he made his letter to the uh American bishops uh a few weeks after the uh re-election which is a very important letter and a turning point. I think also I was very uh interesting in um uh working on GDS who converted to Catholicism as you may know after having met with Peter Till the founder of PayPal and Palanteer and who is one of the best uh tech oligarch one of the ma main uh rich people on earth and now who pretend to be a philosopher who explained to us what will be our future. Uh and Peter Till was very influenced as you may know by Rene which is an important French philosopher who made his career in Statford rather than you know in Europe. And I think that the attitude of GD Vance is very important because um in a sense it try in my opinion to replay the very whole dialectic between the pope and the emperor. If you remember last year, he tried to force the Vatican and was welcomed by Pope Francis uh the day before he passed away for Eastern. He arrived in Vatican with 40 cars and I think that it was a symbol of something very very strong. Once again this uh old story between the pope and the emperor. After that we have the election of uh Leon. What is interesting is the fact that it seems to me for time to time impossible for an artificial intelligence to anticipate the result of a conclave. And that’s something important. Um and the question I have you know for Leon is very simple. Will Leon we which is as you know an American citizen plus a Peruvian citizen initially having also some deep European roots will Leon be for the US what Jean Paul was for the USSR and I think it’s a it’s a question on on which we could uh discuss. So let me finish maybe by um two things in uh in conclusion to try to sum up the uh the integral ambition of this um five books. The very first one is to say that it’s important in Europe, in the think tank community, in academia, in business, elsewhere to relearn to think about power dynamics. And uh it seems obvious say like that but in fact part of our problem was uh in terms of education I think the idea that our model the European model which is fragile which is a political prototype was to be as a model for all the other and I think we understood now it won’t be the case and the fact that our model is attacked and second there is clearly a conflict of models. One of the um uh parts of the of the debate is in my opinion about the notion of limitation. Do we accept the idea that there are some limitation in our behavior in our consumption? And I belong to those who said yes, we should be limited. But you have a sort of uh fascination for unlimitation especially through uh through the tech for the Silicon Valley which which explained that yes we we should have no limitation. We should have no limitation. I I I finished the book by you know the quotation made by Putin to Siinping to say you know uh we can we could live to 150 years now certainly and personally I don’t want to live until this age. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. uh and let’s try to uh to reflect and then go to you. First of all, I do believe it’s absolutely uh uh very nice on the level you have been structuring it start with the fact that the modernity starts when the dwells have been bent.

Banning the dwells was one of the major story that you basically see the anti aristocratic societies. Uh but it was very much about desire. It was very much about status. uh and you’re starting with this kind of a globalized world which is not del globalizing but where basically you see the weaponization of everything trade and war being just different type of wars basically you’re doing this and that my major argument first is going to be on this when I watch what is happening in the world my feeling is that the very idea of power is changing normally power is you’re trying to push others to do what you But look for example what is happening now in hormonians basically blocked it what Americans are doing they’re not trying to unblock they’re blocking again the second blockade so in a certain way power is becoming the capacity to overthrow your problems on others you’re not solving a problem but you’re telling the Europeans to the Chinese it’s a bigger problem for you than for We have oil. We have gas. For sure. There going to be some uh uh uh price jumps. But you should solve this issue. I’m going to create the issue. You you should solve the issue because I can live with it. I don’t believe this is new. This is not America for good or bad. regardless how much we like the solutions that it was offering. But the legitimacy of America in the previous world was very much based on being able to solve issues. Suddenly solving issue is not in the cards anymore. I I was very much really taken by your uh uh totally in my view profound observation that if you see the Israeli Russia dynamic this is amazing. Listen, from the military point of view, go beyond any type of a moral considerations. In the first three hours of the war, the Israelis managed to kill 40 key commanders of the basically Iranian army and this is an army which was prepared for this. So this is not nobody’s Iranian army was a serious uh military thing. You kill the president of the country which is also religious leader. I’m saying from military point of view this was a demonstration of a power but a small country which you basically can be totally shocked in a world that we know demonstration of military power is going basically to bring you major type of international impact you’re going to basically have uh people going with you the result is that very much Israel is more isolated than ever before and this is the reality and this reality is as you said difficult to be changed including in the United States itself. On the other side, Russia really didn’t do well. Uh I’m not the one that is totally trying to underestimate what Russia has been achieved. But listen, the war goes now longer than the World War II. uh you have basically almost everybody not simply on the Russian side but if you’re going to talk to the American intelligence to the French intelligence in the beginning of the war but also in 2025 all of them basically was expecting the Russians to win they’re not winning but while they’re not winning suddenly the major and important western effort uh to isolate Russia does not work so paradoxically Russia is perceived this underdog being a nuclear power former superpower destroying a lot while basically Israel who also tries to play an underdog was perceived very much kind of as somebody uh who goes against public opinion. This is interesting to explain. This is not obvious and in my view this is quite important because you have a world in which globalization is not just happening on the level of the infrastructure but you have this global public opinion which survived the end of the liberal order. It’s not a liberal global public opinion but people are starting to have a judgments and this is going on my third story and this is also very much about desire and so on. Renear used to say that you desire something simply for the fact that somebody else desires it. Desire is very much imitational. And from this point of view the interesting story is that if before kind of in a strange way uh America was shaping the desires of others. It’s interesting basically who shaped the desires. uh European Council on Foreign Relations did a a global opinion poll in uh 11 European countries and 10 of the big countries outside of uh of uh Europe tried to see what was the major impact for the public opinion of the one year of Trump. The major impact was that every single country that we have been polling the majority of plurality of people believe that the influence of China is going to increase. And this is not so surprising. But the second thing was amazing. The fear of China has dramatically decreased. We are talking also about countries like India where you have the majority of Indians and basically everybody who knows the dynamics between India and China relations there is not much love lost there. Uh but suddenly majority of Indians believe that Chinese influence is going to go up at the same time that the relations between China and India are going to improve. This was the major impact of Trump and I’m saying this because comes now kind of a my question you have this debates and I do believe also this Silicon Valley uh uh Vatican is critically important if you see what is happening with technological companies. Now when the MTU story came which I do believe from intellectual point of view is very close to what happened during the Manhattan project when you have the scientists which basically starts to fear what they have produced where they went for moral guidance. Listen I have been in Silicon Valley. This is this not a place full with Catholics. They believe in many things in immortality. all of them is guru to something. uh but but in a strange way this kind of loss not simply of truth but of a moral authority and this is suddenly why the Vatican became so important while and I do believe you’re touching on something very important that uh suddenly Silicon Valley starts to use this kind of need for moral authority to claim that according to Peter T the antichrist is those who wants to regulate technologies and listen I I’m even not arguing is he right or wrong but can you imagine what this is a totally different conversation and this conversation cannot be explained by interest and cannot be explained by ideologies and I’m going to end up on this because I’m interested in this what I found the most attractive uh in your analysis is that you go beyond both two schools that we know best in international relations one is that putting the state at the center of everything and everything is explained as a state interests state interest exist But you cannot explain the story that we’re talking simply based on the state interests. And funnily enough, everybody talks about the rise of the middle powers and of course the famous speech by uh by by Mark Carney. I also see the rise of a middle man. Have you seen for example the fact that all the major negotiations are run by a private persons very wealthy ones? They’re negotiating all for example on the American side Mr. Vitkov and Jared Kushner are negotiating both Iranian American but also Russian Ukrainian but they discussing them and negotiating them as if this is a two conflicts in two totally different world there is no standards what you’re going to do in one side should not have anything to do with the other people are the same but there is no standards in the liberal order it was the opposite was a very Often it’s very hypocritical but you’re having we have the same standard. We try basically what we’re doing in one conflict to do in the other. Now the conflicts are defined as having nothing to do with each other. What you are negotiating on one side is not on the other. But people are the same. You are leveraging the same. You basically don’t know who is negotiating. The state is not present in a strange way. It’s a very much relations based to the political leaders. And by the way, this started to create for Europe a major problem because we do not have a personalized leadership. For example, when you have Mr. Kushner on the other side on the Russian side comes Mr. Ditrif who also has the personal connection. His wife is the closest friend to the daughter of the Russian president. So you can talk like relatives. This is back to the 19th century. This can be done by others but Europeans whom it should be close. If basically you come as a personal friend to President Mcron I’m not sure that basically Chancellor Mer is really ready to believe that he’s represented in this conversation some cousin you wonder I’m not sure that it’s going to work. So from this point of view, Europe is getting out not simply because of some objective story but because of the fact that the nature of a relations changed so much that in the absence by the way Modi can do this easily. We even know Mr. Erdogan he also has family uh uh so from the but what Europeans is and I’m asking this because in my view some of these changes are also critically important because you have this royalist turning politics not in the United States but in the way basically diplomacy start functioning should I respond no thank you very much um even for your very stimulating comments and uh I don’t know if it’s it’s some questions but I will try to to to to react to to a few points. First of all, your idea that power is to uh overthrow your problem to others. Uh that’s very true. I’m not sure it’s it is so new. You know, I remind when there was Nixon shock, the end of the convertibility between gold and um and dollar in 1971, Connelly said this uh famous sentence, the dollar is our currency and your problem. He said that to Europeans and more than 50 years after that’s still the case. Um but what is maybe uh new it is uh the that’s why the notion of control seems to me very interesting the power is there is a visible power and there there is invisible control for me what is striking it is the ability of Netanyahu to control in fact Trump much more than you know the use of force. It’s to unlimited use of force. It is something and the fact that it doesn’t produce anything durable at the time being you know politically it’s not um it’s not a surprise. Second about globalization and weaponization of of everything. It’s also not really new except that maybe we we especially in Europe we are away from a certain na regarding globalization which was a na very very present in the business circles the idea that you are globalized because you can go you know easily to I don’t know to California in the past to uh to the to to Russia to G countries to China and so It’s a sort of airport globalization when in fact we have forgotten alter alterity. It is sort of yes um globalized common classes but with absolutely no deepness in social corpse and for instance we we we we think that it was the good days of globalization after the collapse of the USSR the point I made during orange but we have completely forgotten for instance the civilian war in Algeria the event in Somalia Wanda the the balkcan wars and so on so it’s absolutely untrue to say that the ‘9s were um the beautiful years of globalization. It was just that we didn’t care very seriously about that. Um is uh israelian military efficiency, Russian military inefficiency. There is there is an important point on that because uh it’s related to nuclear deterrence. Uh I think we entered a new nuclear age. The first one was the cold war. The second nuclear age was after the collapse of the USSR, the disarmament and the fight against proliferation. And uh the third one is new because we have now nine um nuclear states and the three most sanctioned in the world by westerners. So namely Russia, Iran and North Korea have a nuclear issue. And for Iran, the main the main one is in fact uh the continuation of his nuclear program which is a justification the ultimate justification of the bombing by Israel and um and uh and the US. But what is interesting it is the fact that North Korea which is a garnizan state succeeded in uh one generation to become a nuclear power at the expense of its own population but uh it is now a nuclear and a ballistic power able to avoid any types of of sanctions. And for Russia we we which has the the most large nuclear arsenal with the US. What is new? It’s not really um a change of doctrine of posture. It’s two things. It is the fact that Russia was targeting many times in its strategic deepness and also on some nuclear assets bomber and didn’t react you know in nuclear terms. So the grammar is still there except that now in the public discourse in the media discourse in Russia it is said one day that uh Vaso should be uh nuked the day after Berlin and the day after Paris absolutely every day on Russian TV show and the question is what will be do you know the political um that’s that’s completely new by comparison with the with the cold war and that’s why you know the the idea that um nuclear arsenal is the ultimate taboo I’m not so sure it will stay you know that for for for the future unfortunately there is an additional important point for Israel um Russia is fighting you know using uh its troop as ever which is to think that the uh Russian soldier is an unlimited resource. So use that like you know some little wood. Um and Israel uh that’s an army of citizens of reserveists which is able uh to fight on simultaneously on six fronts and there are some parallels between Netanyahu and Putin in my opinion they do need war to justify their own power. So we’ll see the result of the election in Israel, but it is sure that Benamin Netanyahu is right now in April 2026 in a better shape than he was after the failure in October 2023. uh a point on um Peter T and because you mentioned you know Demetic and also what what is very important in the the books by by which are not so easy to be read by honestly um it is also his notion of scapegoat or the scapegoat is used by a social community but what is interesting and I I had many reaction to that after the publication of his of his book. So he made he was very influential on Peter Thiel like by the like you know apparently Abberas was also influential on Alex Karp in different ways. So it’s it’s interesting to see that Peter Thiel and um Alex Karp we save a sort of philos philosophical European education which match with the US entrepreneurship spirits. that’s created this sort of of things but their consistent reference to um European philosophers is interesting to be to be noted but uh T and Rene organize a seminar in Stanford in 2003 about apocalypse and democracy and I had strong reaction as I said by uh students of all students of Renear who consider rightly in my opinion for what I I read from him then is is it’s not completely but partly misread by Peter till on many um on many issues um another point you know which is not only the fight between the Vatican and the Silicon Valley this fight maybe mask another convergence which is a convergence between the Silicon Valley and the Chinese Communist Party this point was made by Jeamari Go in his book in 2021. And in terms of importance given to technologies and use of technology to create you know individual bubble for each of us to avoid any type of collective action is something shared by this two school of of thoughts. And last a personal point if I may. Um you know in France we have this notion which is very difficult to be translated uh which is lee it’s not really secularism and we are completely educated in this way which explain why it is more and more difficult for uh large part of um the French elites to speak about the theological political references and to analyze them properly. to explain also the difficulties we could have for the for the debate on Islam for for for instance but personally um I was educated I I’m Catholic by education but with a very poor religious education initially until I was recruited by the Jesuits to have a column in the journal itude which is a monthly journal of the Jesuit established in 1940 something like and so each months I made my article and one day the uh editor who who is who has become a friend of mine peru who by the way is a physician by education told me a sentence which explained a lot for the for my books he told me to you are approaching now 50 years old so maybe it’s time to take religion seriously Um and I must I told him and I said that uh told him uh so I when he said that I I stay silent but in ptorih um so I decided to work more and more on that in the zombies in a way and that’s why also I decided to focus on the relation between Zatican and Zik thank you very much on this and slightly innocent is Berlin used to say that in the way some people do not have a year for music. I don’t have an ear for God. Uh but uh uh uh but it’s it’s your time. So please uh my is to take several questions or comments. This is very much meant to be a real discussion. So please feel invited uh to address any of the questions and the arguments that have been presented and please also present yourself because it’s always helps when you know who is asking question. Please. Hi Natalia, Columbia University. A quick question here because you seem to you have quoted Vladimir Lichenin with uh which sounded interesting to me. Do you think the communist experiment is viable? Do you think it can come back? U yes basically that’s the question. Do you think it’s viable? Thank you. Yeah, please. There was question here and then Anton. Yes. Uh can you just wait because we are doing also the YouTube this. Thank you. My name is Fusher Schmidt. I’m a social scientist and I have worked in Singapore for 25 years which completely changed my view of the world as you can imagine. Um and I was completely unprepared for this and this links a little bit with some of the themes that you’ve been uh drawing upon. You suggested that we need a more global perspective. uh you talked about education and things like that and um my sense is that you know when you look at the reason Europe is so unprepared for this new world um it’s actually behind you it’s in the back it’s the library uh because the library is full of books that treat Europe as the center of the world on on or Europe and North America combined and that treat social science as elaborate home studies. So as a German, I’m a German, right? You learn everything about Germany, but nothing really about the rest of the world. It somehow is the center. And I know it’s similar in France. It’s also similar in the United States with a few exceptions of course where you have kind of centers that look out into the world, right? But by and large and I think by and large we are educated in a way that is completely country centered, euro centered, west centered and so we escape noticing uh how the world around us evolves and I believe that causes a lot of harm actually intellectual harm. Um, and when I’ve lobbyed um to establish a genuinely global social science, I’ve always met incredible resistance um in Europe. People don’t want to hear it. People don’t And I wonder what how you would response to that when you really think about education, when you want to prepare European leaders, so to speak, for a world in which Europe’s um influence cannot but shrink. um if current uh developmental trajectories continue um how how you would think um or how you would respond to this. Thank you Anton. And after that it’s you and then we’ll go to to the first round. Thank you. Uh thank you very much uh for this wonderful discussion. Uh my name is Anton Shahsov Central European University. I have a question about the philosophy of Petal and and and Alex Karp. You mentioned that they are now increasingly using the thesaurus of Catholicism, the thesaurus of religion. And my question is, do you think they are trying tactically to sacralize their own philosophy by using this thesaurus by using the terminology of well proper religions? Or do you think they actually somehow deep in their minds understand that they their own philosophy is minor to the greatness of Catholicism. And they, you know, they basically um concede that the the proper religion is not what they have in their minds with these, you know, digitalization of the soul, digital immortality, etc., etc., and still trying to to to to present Catholicism as the real religion. Thank you. And the last one of the first round, please. Uh, thank you for this event. Uh, I’m Khaled Mri from Roco. uh uh as we see in the recent years in this recent years we see like uh technology acceler acceleration we see big leaps in in AI and big progress uh but at the same time we see like returning to the very traditional power or traditional forces for example like religion and nationalism. We see even in the world uh today that leaders in Israel, in Iran and even Putin and Trump tried to using religion in their in their wars. Uh so uh uh my question is uh how can you explain this uh paradox between the progress of technology and the backward of uh the cultural traditional powers that start to to to to play a big roles in our uh our days. uh and also is the is that meaning that the soft power or let’s say the new soft power are vanishing like art and and uh everything in in last decades I mean the uh the the new soft power that can replace the old powers or or how how do you see all Thank you very much. Can I just add to this? There is a colleague of ours in the institute Clemen Antonov who is working on a project and uh which is why the religious language enters politics even for political leaders that openly declare that they have nothing to do about religion and there are two different hypothesis. is in the moment of a kind of existential danger. There is not any other language that we have or is there something different and deeper? But I do believe it’s interesting and this is for different religion. It’s not about basically uh just for uh for Christianity or for Judaism. You can see it all over. Yeah. Please thank you very much for this easy questions. And so the first one madame on is um communist still valuable? Um you know I I was trained as a historian and uh and I spent uh many hours or many days and many weeks in Soviet archives even if it was diplomatic archives and I I don’t consider that uh the Soviet experience is is a is a success at all to say nothing about you know also the debates uh on totalitarism and so on. Having said that, I think that Lenin when he said certainly did not anticipate that um the Chinese Communist Party will be the main beneficiary of the so-called globalization. What is absolutely remarkable and the Chinese Communist Party is its matrix is Leninism. They said it is a Leninist Marxist political organization. And what is absolutely fascinating it is all a Marxist Leninist organization. The Chinese Communist Party is certainly one the most selective organization in the world and the less transparent and it’s fascinating to observe you know and it’s remarkable in terms of human history the rapidity the quickness of the Chinese emergence economic emergence and that’s part of the problem in terms of globalization because all the anticipation we made especially in the US in Europe was to say oh economic convergence will uh will be down with slight political convergence and that’s the opposite which happened to some extent. So we had economic convergence and we had a strong political um divergence. So my answer is is is uh should be more research of course it is what is specific in terms of ideology uh with what was done by China after you know the the reform decided by denoping uh you know for for me the so-called wave of liberalism decided by Rean and Tachure would not have been possible without the opponent of uh of China. So in terms of evolution of global capitalism, the fact that China opened its market so quickly and so deeply was certainly also a key element for um the the the globalization to to to happen so so so deeply. M your your point on um on uh the fact that we are very uh European center. I share it of course. Um maybe to not to be provocative but to fuel the debate two things I have with some uh colleagues in sociology. I you know part of the of the problem not not part of the problem maybe to to to nuance what you said there are some some attempts for instance global history is I’m am an historian by education global history is precisely just to remind that uh at the 17th century China and India were the most uh important economic center so we rediscover all all these things uh thanks to things like global history. But precisely also the problem of global history and this approach that okay Europe is has not always been the center or is to European um centrist. You know you have a we have a problem of historicity the fact that also Europe had this leadership in a period of time when there is the the revolution of the printing it’s a a question of historicity the fact that China and the US have this position in a period of technological revolution like the artificial intelligence one is a question of historicity. Um and I think that part of of the the the problem is that you are right we were very focused on ourself but part of our problem in terms of understanding especially in Europe we completely dismiss strategic issues thinking that you know strategic thing was over in a sense if I put things very quickly and so we have now some political leaders completely uneducated you know on nuclear for instance and uh it was not the case outside Europe. It was not the case in Russia where the discussion we do during lunch when Russia was to some extent very very in a very very uncomfortable position in the ‘9s but Russia because of its uh academic intellectual tradition was able to react ideologically what was said by um um by by Europeans. So you see my my my answer it’s it’s to say yes there is a need to be less uh European centrist and the the response that is quite simple travel learn a foreign language alterity in fact you know alterity but also be careful the fact that um the nationalist approach of the the states and trade approach is still very very present outside Europe maybe maybe I’m based by my Russian experience But I can say the same for China. I can say the same for India. I can say the same for Iran, for Turkey and others. Um Anton, your your question on on Peter Thiel and um Alex Karp. First of all, I think that Palanteer is a very interesting example of the first I don’t know if it’s the first but let’s say that the first pure ideological company because when you work for Palanteer uh you accept to work and it is clearly said you work against Muslim and against Chinese. So that’s fascinating to have this sort of marketing positioning for a company. Um second um there is a there is a huge philosophical pretension by this uh intellectual oligarchs right now. You know I attended to a presentation made by Peter T in Paris. It was you know presentation like we do in fintex. It was how to say that you know the question was are we in the world the third world war are we in the cold war world 22.20 to zero. Okay. Um but why there there were 200 people listening carefully because he’s uh he’s rich he’s very successful in technology whatever we think about the technology himself and he has now a real pretention to be a sort of oracle you know and to to to be seen and to be considered in the philosopher and I think you’re right it’s a use in in in my in my sense I don’t know the part of sincerity I don’t want I can’t judge but it is clearly used also to promote But it’s all interest. That’s that’s very very very clear to me. Um Khaled your your your question is very difficult. Um and I have no no clear clear answer. Um maybe maybe a reflection of on on um on Catholicism in Europe and also on Islam in Europe. on that what is interesting is the fact that you know um sorry I don’t say that in English but we are in in Europe especially in my country but not only in a process of exultur of Catholicism which is something more and more residual you know at the beginning of 70s 90% of uh the French population receive was uh received a bm and it’s now around 30% so in two generations And I think that a country like France should produce if I may say that 30 30 a year. So it’s something which is um less and less important than it was in Europe but which is very dynamic elsewhere particular in Latin America in Africa in North America and in China. So that’s that’s very interesting to see this um this distortion between something you know rooted in Europe in Roma and in fact uh very very um dynamic outside Europe now and on the opposite side you know the favor when you have you have some uh inquiry about the favor religious favor um in Europe it is much more for Muslim people or for other religion but the vast majority of people the the first religion in fact in Europe and in France in particular it’s to uh it’s not to believe in God that’s the the vast majority of the people so now the link for for with with uh with technology once again I’m I must think about that I don’t know if uh maybe technology is um was supposed to help us to have a better understanding of the world and in fact we are trapped by technology with less alterity and maybe that’s religion is seen as a way to to to find a new new sort of alterity I don’t know that’s that’s a very difficult question I I should think about that um and it’s it’s also your question um Ian about religion is it an instrument instrument and political inf of course it is I mean for instance in Russia orthodoxy things like that we can also the how it is important for Nandra Modi and and so on but maybe you’re right you you are you are also a sort of existential threat given the evolution of you know uh this this idea that there is technology there is simultaneously uh environmental degradation and question for um or on destiny which are more present maybe that’s both simultaneously. Thank you very much. We have nine minutes which means three questions and then three answers please. Yeah you’re going to Yeah. Thank you very much for this interesting discussion. My name is Max Hala. I’m sociologist. I published a book on the war in Ukraine from the perspective of Kant’s theory of war and peace. I think we think now everybody says I I’m not really sure you understood you right. Europe is now out. We have now the big powers again. Military power Europe has no role to play. I think this is very too shortsided view from my point of view. I just have four arguments shortly. First military power of Europe is by far not as vague as it is descri described. There’s now a thick book by military historian expert comparing the military power of Russia and Western Europe and it’s extremely stronger Western Europe if we leave aside Russian atomic bombs. But even if you would combine as your president has proposed several times French atomic power with Germany and other European count it would be very strong militar terms. Second Trump’s big power politics is a disaster. I must not speak lot much about it. The same is true for Netanyahu. It’s also a big disaster because he has not achieved his main goal destroy Hamas but now is very uh strong enemy new in all the Arab world and the Palestinians. Third you mentioned the demographic change I think this is important but the main change will be the growth of Africa. We have here a colleague from Morocco in half a century the population of Africa will be as large as China and India together so I come to the fourth point I think K’s idea about human rights about United Nations and so on is the strength of Europe and it could be very strong if goes to Africa to India to look look for allies India does not aspire to great power like China or United it but try strongly to preserve its neutrality it to preserve to not go into a war and I think in this India and Africa could be a strong life Europe thank you thank you uh there was question there and then question of the first I’m kov I’m political analyst focus on Russia thank you for your presentation and my question is Ian mentioned that France is the only nuclear power in European Union and you mentioned that it’s time for Europe to became a military power and this is idea which is everywhere in the air but there is a next question how do you think and how do we think the architecture of this military alian could should look like because not thinking about this not having this simple framework of understanding how it could look like we cannot move forward Father, thank you very much. We go for the last question. It’s not easy after the nuclear question to come with the last one, please. So, thank you very much, Maximer, a fellow here almost living. Um, I have one remark and one question when you were pointing out this kind of relationships of Trump being emperor and pope being well the pope. I was actually thinking about uh about Stalin’s policies towards the Catholic Church and its relationships of being you know this apocryphical anecdote of the pope how many divisions does he have? Yeah, exactly. And the second question why the evangelical Protestant for the large part United States with this kind of political culture tied to the Protestantism to the second great awakening and whatnot. Suddenly the conservative forces or pretending to be conservative choosing the Roman Catholicism as this sort of vehicle is is it aesthetics? Is it something else? It’s great. So religion comes after nuclear. So which is good. Uh and Tom you have six minutes to answer all these questions. Okay. Uh so coming back to the the first question and the the four short remarks may maybe I was unclear but um uh you know we we we published uh in my institute uh a report which is on our website which is a net assessment of uh Europe and Russia up to 2030. So it’s not to if if if I was I think I didn’t say that a great power is no more important. I think that’s that’s the opposite and I think that’s the real issue for Europeans given the transformation of the transatlantic relations will be to deal with the Russian issue by themselves more more and more. So the fact that Trump’s power is is a is a disaster. I share this this view for the demographic demographic change uh and the importance of Africa. Absolutely. But we should also keep in mind that now two3 of all the countries are aging at the global level. So uh many African countries have already made their demographic transition for instance north Africa countries. You have still some um uh some countries very dynamic uh like Nijer and but um this the the thing is that uh it depends on the on the timeline but what is also important it is to to understand that the demographic dynamic is indeed in in in Africa and in India whereas we have aging population simultaneously in China and in um Europe and North America is between these two two two trends um neutrality and uh the fact that uh India would be um uh how to say that uh I don’t I don’t remember the word you use but my analysis of India is slightly different. I think that India is very nationalist very very and the fact that also Hinduism is used to uh blame or to are against Muslim is part of what what is said you know by the current Indian authorities fight against Pakistan and I think that for India that’s very challenging because India was uh very often uh ve very critical to Europeans to say precisely you you are you are you you are coming from the past we are a deconalized country able to we will become one of the main great powers uh this century for sure but the nationalist approach of India authorities um seems to me uh very clear you know and um I I don’t anticipate a sort I have no vision of a sort of kind India like maybe we had in the past of a kind China. No, I want uh their position and they will fight for that. Um Kil your your answer on um what was um proposed you know by president M as I said you know this morning I think it’s a very important speech. uh I don’t know what will be the uh final outcome of his uh two presidency but uh certainly he he is very in line with the French nuclear tradition and doctrine but was also able to make um a free free inflection. The first one is to say we continue to be in what we call in French to suance. So very limited number of nukes but we will increase this number like the UK and we will no more communicate the number. Second um there is um something which is not technical but which is how to combine differently conventional forces and nuclear forces. So the the word he use is in French epole shoulderto-shoulder and there are articulation which should be thought in different ways especially uh with our European allies for strikes in the deepness and what can be done by some countries by and by others. And last but not least he proposed to eight countries. So it was very seriously prepared in diplomatic terms before um uh a strategic dialogue on nuclear issues. So the answer to your question it is the fact that as soon as we speak you know about strategic issue I think it can be only interstate relations and adaptive formats. So the architecture will be maybe more um adaptive less monolithic than what is expected in Moscow. Um and your question about you know divisions okay share the share the comments and portantism and why this choice it’s difficult question I have no clue but maybe two two observation um GD vance refers very often to Stoan you have that and uh what what is what is um there is a paradox you know so for these people whiteness is very veryant important but part of the uh dynamism of Catholicism in America is related to uh Latinos migrants. So I think that this paradox is interesting. So I do believe we made a good choice inviting. Thank you so much.