The long term geopolitical trends that will shape the next global crisis

What happens when two proxy wars collide with a global power struggle between the United States, China, and Russia?
In this episode of the Brussels Signal Horizon Podcast, geopolitical strategist Velina Tchakarova joins Ralph Schoellhammer for a wide-ranging discussion on the long-term trends shaping the international system and why the world may be approaching a new global crisis.

We explore:

  • Why the wars in Ukraine and Iran have become defining geopolitical fault lines
  • The concept of a “global system rupture” and what it could mean for economies worldwide
  • The evolving relationship between the United States, China, and Russia
  • Whether a new world order is emerging behind the scenes
  • The prospects for a ceasefire in Ukraine and the future of European security NATO, defense spending, and Europe’s strategic awakening
  • Why Russia’s long-term objectives remain unchanged
  • The growing role of technological warfare and military innovation
  • Europe’s economic challenges and the consequences of decades of political complacency
  • The “democratisation of irresponsibility” and the leadership crisis facing Western democracies

Velina argues that the next major crisis will not be driven by a single event, but by the convergence of geopolitical, economic, technological, and security trends that have been building for years.

Velina Tchakarova is a Vienna-based strategist  founder of the geopolitical consultancy FACE – For A Conscious Experience and the former director of the Austrian Institute for European and Security Policy (AIES) in Vienna. Her work centers on translating geopolitical complexity into actionable intelligence for institutions, businesses, and policymakers. She is perhaps best known for coining the term “Dragonbear” her framework for the strategic coordination between China (the Dragon) and Russia (The Bear) — a concept she developed well before such partnerships became headline news, and which now
underpins her broader analysis of what she calls “Cold War 2.0”