World-System (1960-2100) A New "Axis of Evil"?

 

On September 1, 2025, in the Chinese port city of Tianjin, Chinese President Xi Jinping held a summit in response to the Trump II Administration tariff policies that included leaders of Russia and India and other representatives from the Global South (here). Xi declared that "Global governance has reached a new crossroads," in the fight against US Hegemonic Power. Did Xi just announce the birth of the New Axis of Evil? And, what might this mean for the future?

The conclusion from my World-System models is that the future forecasts for the New Axis of Evil all lead to collapse of the system (except for one worrisome scenario).

In prior posts (see the Notes below), I have looked at the issue of US Hegemonic Dominance and the economic performance of Russia, India and China. In this post, I will look specifically at how the three countries (RU, IN and CN) could interact with the current World-System.

The Measurement Matrix (see the Boiler Plate for more information about Dynamic Component Models) is presented in the Notes below. In terms of overall growth, the first growth components for each country are relatively equally weighted (AXIS1). The historical feedback controller (AXIS2) is dominated by Russia. From the graphic above, Russia's dominance peaked before 1990 and then decline after the Fall of the Soviet Union.

--

For the late Twentieth Century, the system was dominated by the US. If that domination were to continue until 2100, the AXIS System would collapse--pretty strong motivation for eliminating US influence.

If the AXIS System were to align itself with the World-System (graphic above), the forecast for the future is also collapse.

If the AXIS System were to go it alone (as a BAU System), the countries could grow exponentially but it would involve the decline of the Russian historical feedback controller (AXIS2) -- a loss that would probably not be tolerated by Russia.

Unstable exponential growth will not minimize Environmental Damage from growth, so another option for an AXIS system not dominated by Russia is to stabilize growth (graphic above). Stability leads to a steady state after 2100 but would also probably not be tolerated by the AXIS participants.

In summary, none of the Geopolitical Alignments for the AXIS System look very promising. Either the system will eventually collapse or it's reason for existence (unending exponential growth) will not be consistent with World System Balance.

However, pursuing World System Balance does not seem to be a priority of any potential Hegemonic or Multipolar Leaders in the World-System.  In the Functionalist explanation, the AXIS System is necessary for the military-fueled expansion of all the participants .I will investigate the AXIS BAU scenario in a future post (here).

You can run the WL20_AXIS model here, the WL20_RU model here, the WL20_CN model here and the WL20_IN model here. 

You can run the AXIS_of_Evil models here.

Notes

Other relevant postings:

• Geopolitical Linkages: Canada, Mexico and the US
• US attempts to dominate India
• China and the Global South
• Six Futures for China
• India as a Small Regional Country
• Hegemonic Dominance Forecasts
• Globalization and Trump II Tariffs
• Five Futures for Russia
• Alternate Futures for the US
• How to Balance the World System

WL20_AXIS model Measurement Matrix:

World-System (1960-2100) Geopolitical Linkages: Canada, Mexico and the US

 

A recent article in the New York Times (here) suggests that Trump II Administration bullying (Trade Threats to both Canada and Mexico) might bring the two countries (CA and MX) closer together. It's hard to imagine Geopolitical Linkages between Canada and Mexico without the US. Mexico has strong cultural and economic relations with the Southwestern US and Canada has solid culture and economic relationships with the entire Northern US. There are strong inertial forces that will keep the Free Trade Agreements between the three countries moving forward well beyond the limited and inconsistent influence of the Trump II Administration.

The results presented below also suggest (not unexpectedly) that President Trump is tinkering with a system that he does not understand.

In this post, I will put the Growth Components (CA1, MX1, and US1, presented in the Notes below) of the three countries (CA, MX, US) together in a systems model and see what shape the future dynamics might take.** The first question would be which model would be best (from an AIC perspective), the two country model (CA1, MX1) or the three country model (CA1, MX1, US1)? The AICs  for the models are presented in the Notes below. From the AIC perspective, the three-country World-System linkage model is best.

But, let me clarify these results. I assume that politicians follow a BAU strategy: "our country is able to make it's own decisions without regard for other countries or the World System". The reality is, however, that each country is part of the World-System, whether they like it or not and whether they do or do not take into account World-System forces. The BAU results in the Notes suggest that CA and MX might reasonably consider going it alone together. The history of US, Canada and Mexico Free Trade Agreements also suggests that the countries understand the importance of the US as Hegemonic Leader of the World-System. Strong inertial forces will keep the three countries trading with each other long past the Trump II Administration. Inertia does not mean that there are not tensions and contradictions in the system!

The problem with forecasts from the WS-linkage model (above) is that each country will face a possible growth-and-collapse, Limits-to-Growth future. The US will peak a little later (2050) than CA or MX (2025). So, right out of the gate, World System linkage will seem like a bad idea to growth-obsessed politicians. From the standpoint of Environmental Damage from growth, Degrowth would be a positive outcome. So my assumption is that growth-obsessed politicians will turn away from a Limits-to-Growth future and focus on a BAU strategy such as NAFTA or the USMCA (the Trump I version of  NAFTA).

If each country (MX, CA, US) focuses on business-as-usual and their existing linkages (which  is very likely after the Trump II Administration), each country could experience unlimited exponential growth well after 2150 driven by the US, which is the unstable part of the system (you can experiment with the MX_CA_US model using the code provided here). At least unstable, unlimited growth was the vision prior to the Trump II Administration. 

I have suggested here that the Trump II Administration  is essentially taking the US on a Random Walk. If Trump is successful, the result (graphic above) could be a steady state (well after 2150) for all three countries if the US Random Walk persists (you can experiment with setting the US to an RW here; try to determine when the steady state will occur--it's way off in the future). 

In the short-run (year-to-year), the Mexican Economy is also a Random Walk (here). Additionally, setting the Mexican Economy to a Random Walk (graphic above) destabilizes the system and pushes the US into collapse mode. President Trump has to be careful with his RW-policy-approach because it can also destabilize the system.

All of the above is a round-about but necessary way of getting to the question of what effect will Trump Shocks have on the USMCA system? The graphic above shows how a negative shock to the US will affect each country, to include the US. Both MX and CA will be affected negatively to about the same extent and take over twenty years to reach equilibrium again. The US will respond positively in the first years (a prediction of the Shock Doctrine) but will eventually have to deal with the negative consequences for about the same twenty years. In other words, 

the Trade War works in the short run but in the long run helps none of the parties.

You can experiment with the MX_CA_US Model here and the MX_CA_US_W Input Model here. You can experiment with the MXL20 model here, the USL20 model here, the CA_LM model here and the WL20 model here.

In a future post, I will explore finding a steady state for the World System and what it's effect on the MX_CA_US_W Model could be.

 Notes

** More information about how the dynamic component state space models can be found in the Boiler Plate.

AICs

The AICs are: (CA1, MX1 = [104 > AIC=121.6, 137.5]) and (CA1, MX1, US1 = [112.5 > AIC=138.5 > 163]) for the Business-as-Usual Models (BAU) and (CA1, MX1 = [58.03  > AIC=101.6 > 134.2]) and (CA1, MX1, US1 = [ 51.14 < AIC=94.59 < 132.4]) for the World System (WS) input model (smaller is better for the AIC).

MX Components

CA Components

US Components

World Components

World-System (1950-2150) Hegemonic Dominance Forecasts

A few new books have been written and reviewed in the New York Times (here) about the evident decline of US Hegemonic Power in the Trump II Administration. From what I can tell, all of the discussions are qualitative and speculative. Since the Future is unknown, there is plenty of space for conjecture.

What has not seemed to have been done is to make multi-model forecasts for the World System given inputs for different countries that are competing for Hegemonic Dominance. Since I have state space models for the World System and for all of the Hegemonic contenders (you can inspect and run the models here), I might as well see what the forecasts say.

The graphic at the beginning of this post shows alternative forecasts for overall growth in the World System. There are three exponential growth contenders: Japan (JP), the US (US) and Russia (RU, see below). The "also rans" are the United Kingdom (UK), Business-As-Usual (BAU), China (CN), India (IN) and a Random Walk (RW) to find a stable, sustainable attractor path.

The surprise forecasts is that Russia dominance of the World System (RU) would create unending, unstable exponential growth. Dominance by other countries have uniformly more modest impacts.

Aside from the fact that living in a Russian-dominated World-System would be an unpleasant authoritarian nightmare, the reason for unending exponential growth is that Russia would supply a rich natural resource base to be exploited by the World-System. Maybe from some perspectives, unending exponential growth is a positive thing, but from a Environmental perspective, it would be a disaster. We have to find a way to limit growth rates and, evidently, linking the World System to Russia is not the way to do it.

You can experiment with the World System model here. You can run the individual countries on the following sites:

Russia (RU_LM Model) An unstable model with strong Export-Employment historical controllers. Becomes cyclical when stabilized.

India (IN_LM Model) A Malthusian Economy currently in collapse mode. Stabilizing the economy is beneficial.

China (CN_LM Model) An unstable economy with strong historical Export-Employment controllers. Stabilizing the economy produces a steady state after 2100.

Japan (JP_LM Model) The Japanese economy has an unstable, sensitive relationship to the Export-Employment (X-HOURS) historical controller. Stabilizing the economy produces an immediate steady state without further growth. Prior to the Great Recession and the 2008 financial crisis, Japan practiced Shūshin koyō (employment for life). Adjustment to market conditions were based on modifying hours. In 1979, Ezra Vogel published Japan as Number One: Lessons for America. The Great Recession and the 2008 financial crisis put an end to fears of Japanese domination of the World-System.

US (US_LM Model) The US is the current Hegemonic Leader of the World-System, but it's leadership is collapsing in the Trump II Administration. The US Economy is an unstable, cyclical model with unstable Export-Employment historical controllers. Stabilizing the model produces a cyclical steady state with wide swings.

UK (UK_LM Model) The UK model is also unstable and cyclical but the cycles are mild until well into the 22nd Century. There is no historical controller for HOURS and both HOURS and the (X-N) population controller follow cycles in the overall economy. The UK withdrawal from the EU (Brexit) can be viewed as an attempt to shield the economy from European shocks.

Some other countries you might investigate are:

• Brazil (BR_20 Model) An unstable model that leads to collapse (stabilizing the model also leads to collapse). There are strong historical unemployment and environmental Controllers. See if you can find a steady state for this economy! 
• South Africa (ZA_20 Model) An unstable economy with strong Globalization-Environmental historical controllers. Stabilizing the economy would lead to a steady state in the distant future (well after 2100).

One thing to keep in mind when exploring potential hegemonic leaders is that the countries being dominated will to some extent (depending on the strength of their historical feedback controllers) take on the historical patterns of the hegemonic leader (India being an extreme Small Country example). Cyclical patterns that may be good for a decade, might not be so desirable during the first downturn.

You can learn more about how the models were constructed in the Boiler Plate. For more discussion of the Indian Economy, see India as a Small Regional Economy.