George FriedmanBesprekingen

Geopolitical predictions so far in the future that they are dizzying. Clearly little will converge but reading how predictions change is a good measure of futueability of scenarios.

I treated this book as a light, speculative and not too serious read of the future of the 21st century geopolitics. In this fashion, it was highly entertaining and even gleamed plenty of insights. I found it via Kindle Unlimited, so it was an easy 'purchase'.

One thing I was pleasantly surprised was with certain factors Friedman was already thinking of a decade ago, such as declining fertility rates and its effects upon immigration and the impending population pyramid economic crisis. I guess analysts are supposed to think of them but being part of the general public, I've only noticed these things come to the limelight for the last few years. Anyways, it was cool to see him extend these present occurrences into the logical next step. So a declining fertility rate means a stagnating population growth which means labor gets more valued which means immigration becomes prized. Other things such as soldiers' lives get more valued too, thereby pushing investment into things like robotic or autonomous technology. These notions certainly bring food for thought.

Friedman also brings plenty of history to his approach, and utilises it as an outline of a general pattern we can see with certain nations in certain markers of theirs' such as geography or natural resources. One example that is a foundation of this book is the United States' virtually untouchable geography. It was a sizeable advantage in the WW2 and the Cold War and it will continue to be one. Another example is Japan's weakness for natural resources and its essential importing of energy. This played a dominant effect in WW2 and likewise, will continue to do so.

This may be the book to finally make me pivot from watching YouTube clips of geopolitical takes (with guilty pleasure), to reading books on geopolitical takes (again, with guilty pleasure).

Geopolitics is a fascinating way to view the world and I hope to learn more about it. I would appreciate any recommendations!

„Sie wollen triumphieren, aber sie wollen kein Risiko dafür eingehen müssen." (Friedmann),

George Friedmann wurde 1949 in Ungarn geboren und beschreibt zu Beginn des Buches die unsäglichen Leiden seiner Vorfahren und Eltern während der Nazi-Herrschaft. Alleine dieser Teil des Buches ist es wert, das gesamte Werk zu kaufen. Er selbst und seine Eltern wurden in Ungarn zu Flüchtlingen, er beschreibt diese Flucht sehr anschaulich und persönlich. Man erlebt, warum eine ungarische Salami eine geopolitische Bedeutung hatte, man ist nah dran an einer unerträglichen Spannung der Flucht nach Österreich. Die Schleuser waren absolute Spezialisten, die einen arbeiteten mit Autos, Booten die anderen nur mit Zügen, ein weitverzweigtes Netzwerk wie es heute auch wieder funktioniert, eine eigene Industrie, die Leben retten kann.

Die Geschichte Europas beschreibt der Autor zurecht als Kampf zwischen Islam und Christentum bzw. der dahinter stehenden, mit den Religionen paktierenden Herrscher. Karl Martell vertrieb im 8. Jahrhundert die anrückenden Mohammedaner und Gott sei Dank haben unsere Vorfahren die Kreuzzüge gestartet. Truppen wurden somit lange in Jerusalem konzentriert und im 16. Jh. konnten die Osmanen vor Wien stehend - Gott sei Dank - zurückgeschlagen werden. Schrecklich sich vorzustellen, was aus Aufklärung und technischem Fortschritt unter der des Lesart Koran geworden wäre.

Die Flashpoints - d.h. Krisenpunkte Europas - sind treffend beschrieben, durch persönliche Besuche vor Ort sehr gut untermauert, und die dramatische, sich abzeichnende Entwicklung einrückender Mohammedaner führt auf mittel- und langfristige Sicht zur Zerstörung Europas wie wir es heute kennen. Nachdem die Türkei als säkularer Staat von Atatürk begründet wurde, pendelt diese wichtige Region an der Südflanke Europas, die Verbindung nach Asien, wieder zum Mohammedglauben, in das Regelwerk einer anderen Welt, die mit der europäischen nichts zu tun hat.

Nicht alle Details sind sauber recherchiert (insbesondere wird der Beute- und Sklavenhaltercharakter des Mohammeddoktrin nicht ausreichend gesehen), es liegt etwas zu viel Gewicht auf dem Machtaspekt insgesamt, die religiöse Triebkraft wird unterbetont, trotzdem stimmt die Geschichte Europas im großen Ganzen.

Europa ist nach Meinung des Autors auf dem absteigenden, machtpolitischen Ast, es sei ein Ort kleinerer Brände, einen großen Krieg würde er hier nicht erwarten. Problem ist, dass man alles wolle, aber keine Kriege, dass man ein Flickenteppich unterschiedlicher Völker sei, die sich im Notfall nicht zusammenraufen. „Sie wollen triumphieren, aber sie wollen kein Risiko dafür eingehen müssen. Sie wollen absolut sicher sein, aber sie wollen sich dafür nicht verteidigen müssen.“

Friedmann sieht die Rechten überall in Europa wachsen, sie lassen alte Nationalstaaten wieder auferstehen, mit allen Nachteilen, die das mit sich bringen kann. Es muss aber nicht so sein. Die Liebe zur Heimat ist nicht verkehrt und auch nicht zu den eigenen Leitlinien eines aufgeklärten, säkularen Europas. Er benennt die Schotten: "Nationalismus muss nicht vom Hass auf andere getrieben sein, die Liebe zu den Seinen kann als Motivation genauso ausreichen."

Wie bei fast allen Amerikanern beobachte ich eine Überbetonung von Machtaspekten und eine Unterberücksichtigung von religiösen Belangen. Letzten Endes hat dies zum (blinden) Vorgehen im Irak geführt, man fragt sich einfach, wo dabei die Islam-Berater gewesen sind bzw. ob sie kein Wort mitgeredet haben. Die USA sei heute immer noch in der Lage, Krisenherde zu löschen, sie auszuschalten, weltweit. Auch das würde ich in Frage stellen, aber die Einwanderungswelle Richtung Europa zwingt uns zum Nachdenken darüber, wofür wir stehen und welche ideologischen Regelwerke wir in Europa nicht mehr dulden wollen. Dies wird von diesem Buch klar verdeutlicht.

16. Oktober 2015

Provocative narrative of what the future holds - centered around the US. Some very interesting predictions and surprises.

I liked this book. Author extrapolates past economic and political cycles into the future. Makes sense to me that this should happen. He describes the historical and places the USA in perspective. There is some talk of an American Empire. and apparently, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

First thought. This is stupid. Why even try to predict anything how the next the 100 years will play out?

But it got me thinking .... the author thinks in terms of historical cultural interactions and demographics. The beginning was fascinating with predictions of Poland, Turkey, and Japan become major world players and how the USA is still on its ascent of being THE major world power. He also offered a plausible reason that China will fail to overtake the USA.

I also liked how he explained the strategy of the USA foreign diplomacy. It's more about keeping anyone from dominating their region than making friends. That could explain why the USA ends up fighting against their past allies all the time.

The author is smart. He knows a lot of his predictions will fall flat. And though that will happen, it would be helpful for people interested in global politics to follow his thought process.

There are not-so-great books that have amazing endings that totally redeem them, and there are pretty good books which have terrible endings that sort of ruin them. The Next 100 Years is the latter type.

Don't get me wrong, this book was very well written and George Friedman gives each of the countries their own personalities, which is so cute, but the ending was a cop out. George Friedman decided that the final conflict of the book would actually end in the 22nd century, so he was not obligated to reveal how it plays out. It was just so frustrating to get through the entire book and be met with a cliffhanger. And let's be honest. Most of us will be dead by the time the 22nd century rolls around, so it's not like we can just wait and see. That ruined the book.

And it's not like the book is without flaws (besides the fatal one at the end). He starts making up details towards the end (WWIII will start on November 24th, 2050), that he readily admits that he has no way of knowing. That's not necessarily bad, just... weird. And the writing can get a little dry at some points.

Besides the end, I really liked the book. Just prepare yourself for disappointment.

Friedman covers a lot of ground in his book "Flashpoints", ranging from the history of Europe and old conflicts to modern day Countries and their leaders. He discusses a number of regions, their politics, religion and geography, and which areas may (or may not) be sources of tension in the future. I don't see any bold predictions here, but it's possible that I may refer back to his book ten years from now to see how things turned out compared to his insights of today.

Friedman looks into his crystal ball, analyzing the political, economic, and military options for the U.S. and the world around us. Each major region of the world is examined, including Europe, Africa, China, Russia, Japan, Mexico, etc. and how our relations with each are likely to be shaped during the next ten years. Interesting, insightful, and we'll see in ten years how good his vision might be.

Somethings to think about, but it's just supposition as to what the future might look like, what countries will gain in power and influence, and theories about future wars. Kind of interesting, but unless I can fast forward 100 years, there's no way to judge how accurate Friedman's views might be.

I listened to this audiobook that I bought months ago at the library used book store. There were eight discs and it took 9 1/2 hours. I think I paid $1.00 for it. The whole set was lost in the house for a long time. I think this was the first time I bought a used audiobook. It was interesting to read about the author's ideas of what the future might hold.

You know those movies where the hero pushes a giant stack of chips onto 32 black and say "let it ride." And people come from all over the casino to see what the outcome will be because My God! this guy has some balls on him to bet that much money on a single spin! This book is like that.

I was really divided on my reactions to this. First I found it had tons of facts and figures that I had never heard before and so really enjoyed it. Either there is a ton of good research in here or its a baffle'em with bullshit factoid storm. And while the great times approach to history was a bit depressing because it make people into little cogs in a machine, it was also kind of fun too because the machine is like one of those contraptions from Rube Goldberg.

I love alternate history. Like alternate history, the book had tons of ideas to work from. The what if aspect is deeply appealing to me. And this book is like a huge alternate/future history series with all the characters and narrative stripped out. A budding scifi writer could just spend a career filling in the story- wannabe Heinlein future historians take note!

On the downside, the author tends to start out saying that history has a tendency to repeat itself, only he puts it much more scholarly, then when predicting some fact, appeals to the fact that history repeats itself as proof its a good prediction. One or the other should probably have been edited out.

More troubling is the lack of mention of the effects of global warming or the development of bipedal drones or any real technological change- although there is a large section in the middle on space which I'll get to directly. You know that old saying, all things being equal? Its typically used prior to making some random statement which everyone knows isn't true because nothing is ever equal. So not paying attention to real technological change is a pretty big strike.

Of course, I'm sure you want to know if I think the predictions are accurate. I haven't the faintest idea. I'm not an expert in global thermo-geo-politics. I only have better than average knowledge on two areas: space and computers (surprise!)

Of space, I have to say, he shows a star warsian level of knowledge. Of course spaceships fly in curves! One small exchange of satellite killers will close off leo for the foreseeable future, coming or going, ship or beam. You are not going to fight a battle through a screen of debris circling the earth. So I have to dismiss the entire middle section as nonsense.

Computers are largely relegated to afterthoughts with the typical, for his age, misunderstanding of what they can and can't do. He ignores the effect the internet is having on the world. He dismisses the concept of what we now call and the Arab Spring early on saying its just not possible. Oops! There is a howler about how the internet was built by the defense department instead of private industry because of the costs involved.

Outside of that there is a book apparently from the late 80s predicting a war with Japan so I'm inclined to go with my first reaction which is to say a hell of a nice framework for a alternate/future history series. So I give it three stars on the merit of being fun to read and chock full of factoids for me to research and then Facebook out some well actuallys (I *live* for well actuallys).

Of course having said that 32 black does come up from time to time...

A truly inane book about geopolitical forecasting of the next 100 years. Peter Zeihan makes every good argument in this book better, from an economic vs. military perspective.

An interesting read, though as you would expect, it becomes more difficult to imagine the further out in time the author goes.

The book focuses on geopolitics and the impact of geopolitics on war strategy. The author looks back in history to frame his geopolitics, and thus misses the technological dimensions of war strategy that we see today in Russia's "meddling" in the elections of multiple countries. Geography may be destiny, but I suspect other dimensions are more important than the author cares to acknowledge, or to incorporate into his thesis.

Regardless, there is a lot to think about in this book, and many of the topics he discusses you can see playing out in the news around you. His discussion of the importance of hypersonic weaponry for example seems very timely.

George Friedman paints a dire picture of instability and chaos closing in on the European Union.. Anyone interested in a better understanding of the reasons behind this crisis- along with the likely outcome- will enjoy reading "Flashpoints". Friedman writes with passion and clarity- expounding on his broad firsthand knowledge of European history, culture, and affairs.

The first half of the book offers a brief political and economic history of each country, including their relationship with each other and their interaction with the United States, Russia, North Africa, and the Eastern Muslim countries. As the author makes clear, each of the EU countries is experiencing some resentment, animosity, and distain toward the other. They never really wanted to form a European Community and only went along with the American (Roosevelt and Truman administrations) idea because they were exhausted, frightened, and traumatized after WW II, and feared another Russian invasion.

The author clearly details how each country differs, how divided they have always been in social, economic, and political beliefs. The decades of peace and prosperity after the war camouflaged the divisive climate as everyone was focused on recovery and rebuilding with the financial and military support of he United States.

Then came the financial crash of 2008. Caused largely by the Clinton administration’s repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act which contributed largely to the collapse of the mortgage market, Europe was left with an economy in ruin as they had heavily relied on Wall Street investments as a path to recovery. George Friedman gives great detail of the events that ensued, but curiously avoids mentioning the little tidbit of who actually caused the dilemma. From that point forward, the European Union began looking like a failing marriage. Long-suffered differences that had been passively endured, soon became intolerable and Europe becomes fragmented.

In the second half, Friedman presents the specific flashpoints where conflict could readily erupt. As each country, region, ethnic group, and political organization ponder their next move, there is a possible outcome of extreme action including dissolution of the EU itself, physical scuffles for border territories, invasion by Russia, and the remote possibility of an out-and-out World War III.

In summary, through deep-rooted primal instincts about life… religion, culture, history, and philosophy… each European country has its own individual characteristics that can not be changed and are incompatible with mutual integration. The flashpoints are merely the most obvious areas of contention. While Friedman’s presentation is unbiased and objective, he does not assume knowledge of a viable solution. One can argue the EU needs more help from the USA immediately- both financial and military. Or perhaps the USA should stay out of EU affairs as much as possible and concentrate on keeping our own country safe and prosperous. And in the category of peace and goodwill, hasn’t the US done enough already? Enjoy the author’s input, passion, and style… then draw your own conclusions.

Two quotes I found quite interesting:

“PEACE DEPENDS ON PROSPERITY.”

“HANNAH ARENDT, A POSTWAR PHILOSOPHER , ONCE SAID THAT THE MOST DANGEROUS THING IN THE WORLD IS TO BE RICH AND WEAK. WEALTH CAN ONLY BE PROTECTED BY STRENGTH, AS UNLIKE THE POOR, THE WEALTHY ARE ENVIED AND HAVE THINGS OTHERS WANT, AND UNLIKE THE STRONG THEY ARE SUBJECT TO POWER. MY FATHER USED TO SAY THAT THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD COULDN’T SURVIVE A CHEAP BULLET. THE SAME IS TRUE OF NATIONS. WEALTH WITHOUT STRENGTH IS AN INVITATION TO DISASTER. IT IS GOOD, AS I HAVE SAID, TO BE NEITHER A VICTIM NOR VICTIMIZER. UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.”

All attempts to forecast the future are limited by is unpredictability and the unexpected. A brief discussion of climate change is held nearly the end. Friedman both accepts climate change and that it is Haman caused. His proposed solution is orbiting solar arrays that will beam energy to earth. But he hesitates to forecast the import of climate change on society.
He says our next major challenge will be a reworking of the University educational system driven by the unsustainable level of student debt.
Finding ways top continue to offer upward mobility will be the driver of the next big cycle.
At best the book is a lens through which to view events. There are some hypothesises that time will test. A worthwhile read.

It does not feel that a deep analysis has been done:
- the presence or loss of the USA's fiat currency rights are ignored
- the breakdown of nations and de-nationalization is ignored
- the change of ideas about conflict, really, are ignored (poison anyone?)
- changes of modes of intra-national relationships ignored (all countries are islands)

The proposal for the World War III in 2049 is kinda cool.

A book of three parts:
Part 1 - The author's family history;
Part 2 - Post-War European history;
Part 3 - Flashpoints.

The family history was ok, but not really what I was after. Like others (see their reviews) I just then skipped to Part 3: Flashpoints.

So, Part 3 - Flashpoints:
- The good: I know a lot about modern geopolitics and still this filled in all kinds of gaps, made me think countless times "of course", "yes!", "ah, right".
- The bad: there's not really much here, and even less about "flashpoints". A better title would have been: "Where we're at".

That's it. Was left informed but unchanged by this book that promised soooo much more than it delivered.

TL; DR: Must try harder; shows promise.

Spoilers and whatnot below








A good history to start with and Friedman very much sticks to the belief that history will repeat itself with Poland as the new Germany in Europe trapped between Germany and Russia, two historic enemies. The US will treat it as it did West Germany. Turkey will rise as a Muslim power in the world. Poland is a bit of a stretch I feel. I would not have made Turkey a first choice, but Friedman backs up his argument pretty well, although he tends to forget that Turkey is very much a secular state.

Three things are needed for a nation to remain a superpower. Military, political, and economic power. The US is the only nation with all three. Japan lacks the military and political power. China lacks the military power projection. Yes they have nuclear weapons, but the are still incapable of taking Taiwan. They are a regional power and and exert their influence as needed in Korea and Vietnam. America has it all our navy controls the sea (and commerce) and our satellites monitor the entire planet. We have militarized space. Since the 1980s we have had air launched anti-satellite missiles. Not only can we see, but we can prevent others from seeing.

Friedman makes the case that we became an empire by accident, by trying to be defensive we gained much more territory. The same could be said of the Soviets after WWII. Our purchase of Alaska and the annexation of Hawaii gave us our satellite buffers to our west and the Monroe Doctrine security to the east.

Friedman makes a case for China to remain a regional power several ways. It's growth cannot continue forever. No growth does, the US started to have trouble in the 1970s as Japan and Germany recovered from WWII with new manufacturing facilities while the US never modernized. Japan stumbled through the 1990s; China's time will come. Second China is locked in on three sides. Two by geography and one by Russia. It will take time and money for China to develop a blue water navy and when and if it does, it will still remain a regional power in the Pacific Basin.

Russia will try and flex its military might more to save face than anything else. Its economy is now based on selling raw materials instead of finished goods, much like third world nations. The good think for Russia is that it has plenty of natural gas and Europe is addicted it.

A few things I have a problem with is the abundance of oil in his scenarios. With China and India's (virtually ignored in the book) growing "middle class" more and more cars are being produced, more and more oil will be needed. It will be some time before the middle of the century when China will have as many cars on the road as the US -- if there is enough oil to allow this. We are about to hit the downward slope of oil production while peaking in demand. Even if there is still oil for many years will production be able to keep up with the sky rocketing demand?

Another problem is that countries do not go to war with countries they are economically dependent on. International trade in itself is a major peacekeeper. International trade has brought about an era were countries do not produce everything they buy. We are dependent on Japan, China, Taiwan for many things we need. The European Union formed to increase trade in member nations. You are not going to war with a trading partner...you cannot afford to.

The war scenario would have been better if kept countries names out of it. Japanese secret moon base would be impossible with the present satellite surveillance.We do not wait for a press release from China to know they launched a rocket...let alone many, many trips by Japan to the dark side of the moon. I do think space will be militarized, it already is well on its way to being. It wouldn't take long to go from passive defense to active offense.

I am a bit disappointed that several countries were barely mentioned: India and Korea. The rise of Mexico is very probable and along those lines so is the rise of Brazil, Argentina and Chile. They remain isolated from world troubles and invasion. Brazil produces most if not all its energy.

It is difficult to predict the future and overall Friedman writes a good book. I do not agree with several points, but they do make you think and that's the main thing.

There has been a minor trend of books predicting the end of the American Empire by 2030. The Storm Before The Calm at first appears to be yet another, but it is more nuanced and clever. It doesn’t predict the end, but a new beginning, one that happens every 50-80 years since America was founded. The idea is that there are two series of waves or cycles: the institutional one runs 80 years (or so), and the economic/sociological one runs 50 years. For the first time ever, they will almost overlap in the 2020s according to George Friedman, who theory this is.

These waves or cycles have no names, just descriptions. They give plenty of warning, a decade or more, and can take another decade to settle down for a calm(er) run over the following 50 years. My problem with them is they are so unscientific, so packed with cherry-picked events, that they could appear any time, or never. Just pick the trends, developments and events you want to populate them with, et voila! They fit the theory.

Meanwhile, back in the cycles, Friedman positions them after major wars and economic crises. So cycles figured in independence, the Civil War, World War II and after Jimmy Carter. The last president of every cycle is a dismal failure, largely because he does not have the perspective to know his position in the cycle. Similarly, the first president in the new cycle makes all kinds of big changes, unknowingly setting up the next calm period with them. In that definition, Donald Trump does not even place. The last president in the upcoming cycles will be 2024-28. Many might think differently about the damage Trump is doing to government agencies and institutions, international trade, treaties, relations, morals and values, but in Friedman’s theory, he’s just more, not majorly different. And not The End.

Trump does however fit Friedman’s requirement of an ever-failing attempt by a president near the end of a cycle to bring back the good old days of an era that is gone forever. So one way or another, there’s more of that to come. Previous presidents at the end of cycles were John Quincy Adams, US Grant, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter.

Besides the timelines, the evidence for the upcoming changes are that institutions have twisted themselves out of scope. For example, Friedman cites mortgage assistance. That was a postwar effort to help veterans become civilians, but morphed into a feeding frenzy down to subprime civilians and led to a massive debt bubble bursting in 2008. Similarly, the country no longer has the luxury of leaving declarations of war to the deliberations of Congress, he says. Nuclear and terrorist attacks have changed the playing field, requiring instant response. In his theory, these are tension points that will need unwinding.

Cycle ends are characterized by deep social and economic dislocation. There would be little disagreement we are undergoing such change, but it can also be said of pretty much any stretch of American history. The USA is a constant struggle to adapt. Westward expansion, Southern Reconstruction, urbanization, suburbanization, ghettoization, public education, computerization, drugs, mass media of various levels over the decades, have all contributed their piece to the strain. To me these cycles, lasting as short as Friedman specifies, might as well not be accounted for at all. He does not make the case they are distinct and recognizable to anyone but him.

Friedman spends a chapter explaining how the USA is an empire in denial, a reluctant empire, an immature empire, and not a particularly competent empire, using too little or too much force, largely dependent on Russian involvement for its efforts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Countries worldwide must toe the US line or be invaded, taken over, have their governments replaced or bankrupted. The USA maintains over 840 overseas military bases in far less than the 200 countries of the world, precisely to maintain its empire. And what it doesn’t threaten with its military, it manipulates with its money.

He says Americans don’t care much for ideologies, but that is absurd. The whole country has devolved into ideologies, voting by party, marrying by party, moving house by party allegiance. People don’t know the names of the candidates any more, they simply vote by party. For him to base his cyclical conflicts on the lack of ideology sends the whole project off the rails, for me.

Instead of ideology, he thinks the next big conflict will be over the federal government vs the citizenry, that the technocrats want to defend their power of complexity over the people’s desire for simplicity. But the federal government has been neutered and no longer matters very much. From the EPA to the weather service, the president has been interfering, reducing, minimizing and emasculating government. The EPA has been reduced to counting toilet flushes, the FBI to investigating the FBI. It’s not that no one trusts government any more, it’s that government isn’t there any more. The Justice Department did not take down a single financier over the 2008 Financial Crisis. Antitrust is a quaint notion. Regulations are being rolled back for no reason. Parklands are shrinking. Even the IRS is incapable of carrying out its mandate. So where exactly is the front line of this future battle?

He also forces things to fit his theory. He says the George W. Bush administration was the last time there was co-operation and rationality in government (“calm”), that beginning with Obama and now Trump, rigidity and lack of progress rule. But during Bush II, the W. stood for Worst president in history. His cabinet members were not merely unqualified or incompetent but maliciously so. He accomplished nothing lasting (structurally), even with the loud influence of the Tea Party. He was embarrassing internationally, and ridiculed nationally. To be nostalgic for W. as a pillar of calm stability is ludicrous.

Finally, this theory is only valid in the USA, it seems. It is special for Americans alone. Which doesn’t help its standing as a theory.

George Friedman was the chairman of Stratfor, the geopolitical prognosticator. It should be noted that another alum, Peter Zeihan, has just published a book called Disunited Nations using the Stratfor brain trust to predict how nations all over the world will fare in the coming decades, but not coming even close to what Friedman says about the USA. It would seem the crystal ball business is not quite as reliable or replicable as its adherents would have it.

David Wineberg

CX02

A very insightful baseline covering hot spots. This book brings the reader up to speed on the history of certain regions explaining they why and where these areas are of interest. Great read.

I found this book really interesting. For me, the point of this book is not whether the author will be right on any of his predictions - he probably won't be - but in the thought experiment of attempting to predict the unpredictable. He makes interesting points about the distant and recent past in his attempt to predict the future, and those points are worth considering.

Since I'm reading this book so long after it was first published, it's easy to see some areas where the author is already off track. I couldn't buy into the predictions about Poland, Turkey, Germany, or Japan at all, but the prediction about U.S.-Mexico relations seems plausible.

To some extent, a pop version of Skowronek. Speculates about the future of the US across the 21st century.

Repeats himself ( badly editied ? )