Prof. Jiang Xueqin, Peter Zeihan, and George Friedman https://youtu.be/5_S0Fn66Xkg?si=ZbpFNI7hrDJ9Ghzl are prominent geopolitical analysts who offer forward-looking predictions on global power dynamics, economic shifts, and international rivalries. Drawing from the discussions on their views (Jiang’s 2026-focused interview on US-China tensions and empire decline; Zeihan’s emphasis on deglobalization and demographic crises; Friedman’s long-term cycles and US dominance), several key commonalities emerge in their outlooks. These scholars converge on structural themes about the erosion of the post-WWII global order, the enduring advantages of the United States, and the vulnerabilities of rivals like China and Russia. Below, This article outline these shared elements and the overarching framework that underpins their predictive methodologies.
Key Commonalities in Predictions
US Resilience and Relative Strength Amid Global Decline: All three view the United States as fundamentally advantaged in the long term, despite short-term challenges. Jiang predicts US over extension in 2026 (e.g., via military actions in the Middle East and Latin America) but sees it as a symptom of declining empire hubris, with potential for fragile deals like a US-China “grand bargain.” Zeihan is explicitly optimistic, highlighting US energy self-sufficiency, favorable geography, and demographics as buffers against deglobalization, positioning North America as a winner. Friedman echoes this, forecasting a US “Golden Age” post-2030 after navigating 2020s domestic crises, with geography (e.g., oceans and rivers) ensuring naval and economic dominance.
Common thread: The US will weather global disruptions better than peers, refocusing on core interests (e.g., Western Hemisphere under Trump) while withdrawing from overextended commitments like Europe or endless wars. Decline of China and Russia as Major Powers: Each scholar anticipates significant weakening for these nations due to internal and external pressures. Jiang emphasizes China’s vulnerability to US disruptions in energy and resources, risking mutual economic destruction but likely leading to concessions. Zeihan has long predicted China’s “imminent collapse” (potentially by 2035) from demographic aging, import dependencies, and financial over extension, with Russia’s war in Ukraine accelerating its isolation. Friedman sees both as declining due to demographics and economic constraints, with Russia achieving limited gains in Ukraine (e.g., neutralization as a buffer) but facing broader fragmentation. Common thread: These declines stem from unsustainable models—over reliance on exports/energy for China, military adventurism for Russia—leading to isolation or breakdown in a fragmenting world order. Shift Toward Multipolarity, Deglobalization, and Regional Conflicts: The analysts agree on the end of US-led globalization, ushering in regional blocs and heightened rivalries. Jiang foresees intensified US-China-Japan tensions over Taiwan and resources, plus US “micro-militarism” in the Global South. Zeihan predicts trade regionalization, energy shocks (e.g., 2026 shadow fleet collapse), and crises for export-dependent Europe and Asia. Friedman describes a multipolar world without a single hegemon, with rising powers like Poland, Turkey, and Japan filling voids, and economic tools (e.g., tariffs) replacing military ones.
Common thread: Escalating conflicts in hot spots like Ukraine, the Middle East, and Latin America, driven by resource scarcity and power vacuums, with Europe particularly vulnerable to deindustrialization and disunity. 2026 as a Pivotal Inflection Point: While Friedman and Zeihan offer broader timelines, all align on 2026 as a year of acceleration: Jiang’s US-China negotiations and potential invasions; Zeihan’s energy crisis and NAFTA review; Friedman’s possible Ukraine resolution and US policy shifts under Trump. This reflects a shared sense of mounting crises in the mid-2020s. The Framework Through Which They Posit Predictions: Structural Determinism
These scholars employ a structural deterministic framework to derive their predictions, prioritizing immutable or slow-changing factors over ideology, individual leaders, or short-term events. This approach assumes nations and powers act rationally within constraints imposed by geography, demographics, economics, and historical patterns, leading to predictable outcomes. Key elements include:
Geography as a Core Constraint: All emphasize how physical landscapes shape destinies. Zeihan and Friedman highlight US advantages (navigable rivers, ocean barriers) versus China’s import chokepoints (e.g., Malacca Strait) or Russia’s vast but indefensible borders. Jiang implicitly incorporates this in discussions of energy routes and US hemispheric control.
Demographics and Economics as Drivers of Decline: Predictions hinge on population trends (e.g., aging in China, Russia, Europe) and resource dependencies. Zeihan is most explicit here, using demographics to forecast labor shortages and consumption drops. Friedman integrates economic imperatives with historical cycles (e.g., US 50/80-year resets), while Jiang applies game theory to economic self-interest, modeling rivalries as zero-sum games over resources like oil and metals.
National Self-Interest and Rational Actor Models: Ignoring moral or ideological narratives, they view states as pursuing maximization of power/security. Jiang’s game theory lens (e.g., “ladder over an abyss” for US-China) treats actors as rational but prone to hubris-driven errors. Zeihan’s deglobalization thesis assumes self-preservation trumps global cooperation, and Friedman’s “national imperatives” framework sees behavior as dictated by survival needs within geopolitical realities.
Long-Term Cycles Over Short-Term Volatility: Predictions are structural rather than event-driven; e.g., Trump’s policies are seen as symptoms of deeper shifts (Friedman’s cycles, Zeihan’s isolationism, Jiang’s overextension). This determinism allows for bold forecasts but acknowledges adaptations (e.g., delayed timelines for China’s fall). This framework contrasts with ideological or personality-focused analyses, providing a cohesive lens for why global shifts are inevitable. Differences exist—Jiang’s shorter horizon and emphasis on game theory versus Zeihan/Friedman’s heavier demographic/geographic focus—but the deterministic core unites them, substantiating claims of US ascendancy amid rivals’ woes. If events like the 2026 energy shock or Ukraine resolution unfold as predicted, it would validate this approach.
Three detailed views are as following:
Prof. Jiang Xueqin on Predictions for 2026 – Empire, Rivalry & Collapse
In an hour-long interview hosted by Glenn Diesen, a professor and editor focused on Russian foreign policy and geoeconomics, with guest Prof. Jiang Xueqin, an academic known for accurate geopolitical predictions using game theory and self-interest analysis (ignoring ideology). They discuss 2026 as a pivotal year marked by accelerating US empire decline, intensified great power rivalries, economic crises, and potential conflicts. Jiang emphasizes that global players act to maximize self-interest, leading to irrational overextension by declining powers like the US.
Key Themes and Predictions:
US-China Grand Bargain and Rivalry: The centerpiece is Trump’s planned state visit to China in April 2026 (his first in the second term) to negotiate a “grand bargain” forcing China to rely on USD for oil and resources. This echoes Nixon’s 1970s deals but aims to stabilize the USD amid debt, overprinting, and de-dollarization efforts by China (e.g., Shanghai Gold Exchange).
US strategy: Disrupt China’s energy supplies by invading/destabilizing Venezuela, Iran, and the Middle East, pushing China toward Western Hemisphere resources under US control. This includes denying China access to oil, silver, gold, lithium, and copper for EV and AI industries. Risks: Mutual assured destruction if China dumps US Treasuries or manipulates commodities (e.g., silver exports causing market chaos). Jiang uses a “ladder over an abyss” metaphor: Both nations must climb together, but US hubris insists on dominance, risking mutual collapse.
Outcome: Jiang predicts a likely deal (e.g., 50% oil from US, 50% from Russia for diversification), but it won’t resolve underlying tensions. Escalation in US-China-Japan rivalry over Taiwan and Malacca Strait energy routes is expected, with heated rhetoric and potential blockades.
US Economic Crisis and Internal Instability: Major weaknesses: AI bubble (massive data center investments with unclear profitability, potentially causing job losses and collapse); over-financialization (e.g., leveraged commodities like silver at 300:1 ratios); crypto speculation.
 Broader issues: Oligarchic control of markets prevents self-correction; quantitative easing props up bubbles. If it bursts, expect a great financial crisis leading to civil war, as society lacks cohesion. Gold/silver rallies will continue due to demand exceeding supply, driven by AI/EV needs.
 Europe, Russia, and Ukraine: Ukraine war is “stabilized” (outcome determined: Russia wins), but Europe will irrationally militarize against Russia despite no path to victory, leading to protests and fiscal collapse. NATO’s endgame: Collapse in Odessa, where NATO commits to defense but can’t hold, forcing conscription and civil unrest. Europe sacrifices lives to avoid admitting mistakes (e.g., expanding NATO, sabotaging peace talks). Trump’s hatred of Europe (for insulting him and conspiring against his first term) means abandonment; US sees Europe as a freeloader with no value (aging population, few resources). Greenland claim exemplifies this.
Middle East and Iran:Â
US will escalate: Possible ground invasion of Iran (post-April, to fulfill promises to donors like Miriam Adelson). Air strikes alone won’t achieve regime change; needs US troops, but overextension risks disaster (Iran’s size, military strength).
Protests in Iraq (possibly Mossad-influenced) set the stage. Russia will defend Iran; China’s response is the wildcard.
Global South and Other Conflicts: US reasserts Monroe Doctrine via military hegemony in Latin America: Expect strikes on Mexican/Colombian cartels, threats to Cuba/Nicaragua/Brazil. Maduro’s kidnapping humiliated Venezuela/South America, rallying resistance and accelerating anti-US sentiment. Africa: US challenges China’s influence, leading to more conflicts. Overall: Trump’s “micro-militarism” (attacks on minor states for optics) signals decline—short-term wins but long-term isolation. Empires fall by antagonizing allies/vassals through hubris and lack of restraint.
Overall Outlook:
Jiang views 2026 as an acceleration of US overextension and decline, driven by Trump’s reality-TV mindset (prioritizing optics over strategy) and hubris/racism toward rising powers like China. While short-term US dominance in the Western Hemisphere may emerge, it sows seeds for global revolution against American power. Facts don’t constrain Trump; he operates like a “mafia boss” in “Trump World,” consistent only in self-interest. The year could see a fragile US-China deal, but unresolved rivalries risk escalation into broader crises. The discussion ends on a note of uncertainty, with April’s meeting as a key inflection point.
Peter Zeihan’s Key Geopolitical Predictions (as of early 2026)
Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical strategist focused on demographics, energy, geography, and deglobalization, maintains a generally optimistic view of the United States’ position while forecasting severe challenges for much of the world. His core thesis—outlined in books like The Accidental Superpower (2014), The Absent Superpower (2017), Disunited Nations (2019), and The End of the World Is Just the Beginning (2022)—is that the post-WWII American-led global order is collapsing, leading to regionalization of trade, energy crises, and demographic-driven breakdowns. The US, being energy- and food-self-sufficient with favorable geography and demographics, will thrive in isolation.
Near-Term Focus: 2026 as a Pivotal Year
Major Energy Shock in 2026: Zeihan describes 2026 as “a wild ride” due to the impending collapse of the “shadow fleet” (unofficial tankers evading sanctions on Russia, Iran, and Venezuela). Ongoing US seizures, Ukrainian drone attacks, and interdictions are shrinking this fleet (estimated at ~1,000 tankers). This could remove millions of barrels per day from global markets (e.g., ~1M from Venezuela, potentially more from Iran/Russia), causing tanker shortages, skyrocketing shipping costs, and reduced exports from sanctioned producers. Combined with demographic declines curbing consumption in some areas, this creates a multi-phase oil market crisis affecting transport, production, and prices worldwide.
NAFTA/USMCA Renegotiation in 2026: The agreement’s review clause triggers in 2026. Zeihan expects minimal major changes, viewing Mexico as a stable, integrated partner with young demographics complementing US capital and technology. This strengthens North American self-sufficiency. Longstanding Predictions (Reaffirmed in Recent Years)
China’s Imminent Collapse: Zeihan has predicted China’s breakdown for over a decade (e.g., since 2010), citing severe demographics (rapid aging from the one-child policy, underestimated population by ~100M), overreliance on imports (energy, food, materials), financial overextension, and deglobalization. He recently stated (late 2025) with “high confidence” that “China as we currently understand it” will be “gone” within 10 years (by ~2035), potentially fragmenting or becoming impoverished. Policies like a hypothetical “three-child mandate” won’t reverse this, as cultural/economic shifts have cratered birth rates irreversibly.
Russia’s Ongoing Decline: Russia’s Ukraine invasion (which Zeihan foresaw based on strategic vulnerabilities) accelerates its breakdown. Demographic collapse, military overextension, and energy sanctions will lead to further isolation and potential internal fragmentation.
Deglobalization and Regional Blocs: Global trade shrinks as the US withdraws from policing sea lanes. Winners: North America (US, Mexico, Canada—energy/food secure, integrated manufacturing).
Losers:Â Export-dependent nations like Germany (deindustrialization from energy loss), Japan/Italy/Korea (aging severely), and much of the Global South (food/energy shortages, potential famine).
US Advantages in Trump’s Second Term: The US benefits from shale energy, young-ish demographics relative to peers, and navigable rivers/geography. Trump-era policies (tariffs, nationalism) align with Zeihan’s view of necessary reshoring, though he criticizes focus on allies over opportunities (e.g., deeper ties with UK, Southeast Asia, Cuba).
Other Notable Views:
Ukraine/Russia War: Stalemate persists; rushed US-led peace talks under Trump are failing due to neglected details.
Europe and NATO: Continued decline; US abandonment accelerates regional chaos. Global Risks: AI/refinery bubbles, labor shortages from demographics, potential depressions worse than 1929 if supply chains fully fracture. Zeihan’s views are provocative and deterministic, emphasizing immutable factors like demographics and geography. Critics note overstatements (e.g., repeated China collapse timelines) and underestimation of adaptations (e.g., policy mitigations, technology). However, events like Russia’s Ukraine actions and energy vulnerabilities have aligned with some forecasts. His official site (zeihan.com) and YouTube channel provide the latest updates.
George Friedman’s Key Geopolitical Predictions (as of early 2026)
George Friedman, founder and chairman of Geopolitical Futures (GPF) and author of books like The Next 100 Years (2009) and The Storm Before the Calm (2020), uses a geopolitical model emphasizing immutable factors such as geography, demographics, economics, and national imperatives. His forecasts are long-term and structural, often revising earlier bold predictions (e.g., Russia’s resurgence in the 2010s was accurate, but China’s rapid fragmentation has been delayed). He remains strongly optimistic about the United States’ enduring dominance due to its geography, naval power, and ability to reinvent itself.
Core Long-Term Thesis
United States Dominance: The US will remain the preeminent global power throughout the 21st century, entering a “Golden Age” in its second half. It benefits from secure geography (oceans and rivers), energy/food self-sufficiency, and demographic advantages relative to peers.
 Rising Powers: Poland (leading an Eastern European “Bloc”), Turkey (dominant in the Islamic world and Caucasus), and Japan (Pacific reemergence with military buildup) will become major regional powers.
Declining Powers:Â Russia and China will weaken significantly due to demographics, economic vulnerabilities, and internal pressures.
Near-Term Focus:Â The 2020s as a Crisis Decade for the US
In The Storm Before the Calm, Friedman predicted the 2020s would be a period of intense domestic discord, institutional upheaval, and socioeconomic crisis—part of recurring 50-year socioeconomic and 80-year institutional cycles in US history. This decade features political polarization, government restructuring, and foreign policy shifts, but ends with reinvention and renewed strength by the early 2030s.
Trump’s second term aligns with this: He acts as a “disruptor” reacting to unsustainable global over extension, not an anomaly. Policies like tariffs and reduced foreign entanglements are structural necessities. Key Predictions for 2026 and the Coming Years
Trump’s Foreign Policy Shift: The new US National Security Strategy marks a fundamental change—prioritizing Western Hemisphere preeminence (e.g., pressure on Venezuela, Cuba ties), avoiding military rivalry with China, and disengaging from European conflicts. This is “here to stay” as it reflects post-WWII order’s end and US refocus on core interests.
Ukraine/Russia War: Likely ends in 2026 with Russia achieving its goal—a neutralized Ukraine as a buffer zone. Possible Trump-Putin deal reintegrates Russia economically (e.g., back toward G8 status), creating a pragmatic understanding among US, Russia, and China on trade and spheres.
China: Ongoing rethinking—economic vulnerabilities persist, but no imminent collapse. Viewed as an economic (not military) challenger; US avoids confrontation while using tariffs strategically.
Europe:Â Disunited and declining; exaggerated fear of Russia (due to nuclear threats, not invasion capability). Eastern Europe (esp. Poland) becomes defense pivot as US reduces involvement.
Global Order:Â Moves to multipolarity without a single anchor. Economic warfare (tariffs) dominates; relationships restructure (e.g., US-Russia-China understandings, Latin America opportunities).
 Other Risks: Oil glut potentially lowers prices in 2026; focus on labor shortages over financial crises long-term. Friedman’s views emphasize predictability from constraints—nations act on imperatives, not ideology. Critics note some timelines have shifted (e.g., China/Russia declines slower than 2009 forecasts), but events like Russia’s Ukraine actions and US inward turn have validated core ideas. Latest insights from GPF site, YouTube/podcasts, and recent articles (e.g., January 2026 pieces on Russia fear and NSS).
