Are We Sleepwalking Into World War III? The Threat Every Leader Is Ignoring!

The modern era features a fundamental clash between two rival systems for organizing international relations and generating power: continentalist empires, which focus on conquering land and resources, and maritime-based world orders, which depend on universal rules and international trade to create prosperity. The struggle between these worldviews shapes today’s geopolitical landscape, as evidenced by the behavior of Russia, China, and even policies from former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Competing Organizational Systems and Historical Origins

Continentalist Powers Prioritize Expansion and Resource Extraction, Viewing Land as Currency of Power and Wealth, as Shown by Empires, Russia, China, and Trump’s Nationalist Policies

Historically, continentalist societies structured their world around the seizure and control of territory. For them, land is the primary currency of power and wealth; empires and dictatorships see expansion as a justification in itself, believing that growth in physical territory is essential for status and security. Sarah Paine highlights how empires, including Russia and China, have historically prioritized the conquest and control of additional land. In this model, wealth is burned rather than generated—the pursuit of empire destroys rather than creates value, as seen in repeated cycles of expansion, warfare, and expropriation.

Russia, Paine notes, typifies continentalism. The Russian state, dating from tsarist times through the Soviet era and into Putin’s regime, is obsessed with expanding outward in all directions, dividing the world into spheres of influence, and fighting on the uncertain edges of these “spheres” over territory. China, too, has followed continentalist instincts, seeking self-sufficiency through territorial acquisition, as exemplified by its move into Manchuria in 1931 and decades of war and turmoil to consolidate land-based power.

Even Trump’s nationalist policies echo a continental mindset. He threatened to absorb Canada as the United States' 51st state, seize Greenland, and kidnap leaders such as Venezuela’s Maduro—treating other countries as property to be taken or controlled, reflecting an authoritarian, conquest-oriented worldview.

Maritime Orders Generate Wealth Through Universal Rules and Trade

Contrastingly, the maritime world order, developed by powers such as Britain and embraced in the era of industrialization, is built not on land grabs but on industry, commerce, and sea-based trade. The currency of power shifts from land ownership to the ability to compound wealth. Maritime societies connect through ocean trade routes; container ships move staggering quantities of goods globally, enabling vast wealth generation.

In this model, prosperity comes from establishing universal rules—practices analogous to traffic laws—across borders. These norms, rather than sheer power or threat, allow individuals and businesses to thrive. A consistent, rules-based system ensures that people can keep the fruits of their labor and entrepreneurship. Democracies embracing the maritime model enable legal protections, tolerate differences, and support free enterprise, thus achieving high per capita standards of living. When China participated in the maritime rules-based order, its economy grew substantially; when nations abandon the rules, their ability to compound wealth plummets.

Maritime System Ensures Prosperity By Safeguarding Labor Fruits and Enterprise From Confiscation

The maritime order’s principle advantage is that it allows people to start businesses, operate across borders, and retain their earnings, free from arbitrary seizures. Wealth generated through free enterprise is protected by universally recognized legal norms, fostering innovation and widespread prosperity. Paine stresses that maritime-based democracies are the only systems that reliably generate massive, positive-sum economic outcomes, unlike continentalist societies, where property and profits are always vulnerable to confiscation by the powerful.

Continentalists See Territory and Resources As Conquests

Continentalist regimes treat land and resources as prizes to be seized and held, often resorting to force, intimidation, and authoritarian control.

Putin's Russia Embodies Continentalism, Aiming to Restore Soviet Boundaries and Expand Into Ukraine, Seeing Conquest As Restoring Greatness Despite Lacking Economic or Desirable Goods

Putin's Russia is the modern archetype of continentalism. Despite already possessing the world's largest landmass and abundant resources, Russia pursues further expansion, aiming to reconstruct former Soviet boundaries through invasions and interventions in Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus. This drive for conquest is not supported by any substantial economic rationale; Russia lacks competitive manufactured goods and instead relies on basic commodity exports. The obsession is power, not prosperity. Under Putin, Russia views itself as victimized by outsiders even as it acts as an aggressor. It resorts to force, brutality, and political repression. Russian society is organized so that those connected to power can confiscate property and send citizens to fight in foreign wars—they have no alternative.

China's Continentalist Strategy: Supporting Russia’s Ambitions, Exploiting Sanctions For Resources

China, while wary of Russia, also participates in the continental world order by supporting Russia’s ambitions. Beijing provides Moscow with essential resources and technology, profiting from sanctions placed on Russia by Western maritime powers. China acquires Russian goods at reduced rates, strengthening itself while undermining Russia’s bargaining power, and exploiting the discord to further its own interests.

Trump Shows Continentalism By Threatening to Absorb Canada, Seize Greenland, and Kidnap Leaders Like Maduro, Revealing an Authoritarian View of Nations as Property

Sara Paine highlights how Trump’s rhetoric and actions toward Canada, Greenland, and Venezuela mirror the continentalist logic: absorbing ...

Sarah Paine draws on the lessons of the Soviet Union and recent American and international developments to highlight the dangers posed by the normalization of lies, the erosion of democratic norms, and the rise of authoritarian leaders exploiting democratic systems.

Normalization of Lies and Authoritarian Leadership in Democracies

Sarah Paine explains that the Soviet Union’s collapse stemmed from a societal foundation built on deception. Under the communist system, resource managers constantly exaggerated their needs and understated their resources, fearing they wouldn’t get what they needed. This routine dishonesty led to systematically unreliable data, contributing to gross misallocations and triggering economic disaster. Paine recalls living in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, where she witnessed near-empty grocery stores, rotting meat, and reliance on imports like Hungarian apples or Romanian canned tomatoes, illustrating the extreme dysfunction caused by decades of misinformation and state lies. As soon as the brittle system broke along ethnic lines, collapse was rapid and total.

Paine warns the United States risks following a similar path by normalizing dishonesty, especially through political leadership. She points to Donald Trump as an example of a leader who routinely breaks the truth norms essential to democracy, treating serial bankruptcies and misleading statements as routine practice. Paine outlines how this pattern of behavior—supported and normalized by segments of the political class and public—undermines informed governance and long-term stability. Accepting such lies perpetuates the spread of misinformation, further eroding the public's ability to make sound decisions and maintain a functional society. She stresses that the embrace of dishonesty also makes political systems vulnerable to disinformation attacks, as seen in Russian tactics that blur truth with lies, ultimately damaging the foundation of governance.

Erosion of Democratic Norms as National Security Threat

Paine argues that the erosion of foundational democratic norms poses a direct threat to national security and the alliances that keep Americans safe. Traditional American values called for accepting election results, congratulating political opponents, and using losses as opportunities for self-improvement. Increasingly, key leaders now choose to claim fraud and refuse peaceful transfers of power, breaking these essential norms.

She criticizes the Republican Party for enabling democratic decay, such as confirming unqualified appointees like Pete Hegseth to major positions instead of demanding proven leaders like General Mattis. According to Paine, this dereliction undermines not just governmental competence, but also the U.S. alliance system—an arrangement meant to protect Americans and their children. Paine notes, “You’re wrecking the United States, and you’re doing it not temporarily, but for as long as anyone who's alive at this moment and will remember it.” She emphasizes that undermining democratic norms is ultimately a threat to collective security, as destabilized governance weakens critical alliances abroad.

How Authoritarian Figures Rise By Exploiting Democratic Systems

Paine further outlines how authoritarian leaders exploit democ ...

Recent U.S. military interventions, particularly the war with Iran, have produced a cascade of strategic, economic, and diplomatic consequences, undermining American interests and global stability.

Iran War: A Catastrophic Strategic Failure

The Iran War Ranks Among History's Most Incompetent, Imposing Massive Costs on the American Economy and Alliances While Harming Iran and Disrupting the Global Economy Through Energy Disruption and Fuel Price Inflation

Sarah Paine calls the Iran War "one of the most incompetent wars in human history," imposing steep costs not just on Iran but also on the United States and the global economy. Paine notes the war has "trashed the U.S. economy" and severely damaged the U.S. alliance system. The war has led to rising energy prices affecting Americans weekly at the pump, as well as high petrol prices in Britain, directly linking these increases to the war’s energy disruptions.

Paine explains that oil refinery capabilities are mismatched to the current crisis, with millions of dollars and significant downtime required to shift production, making diesel shortages and price rises directly attributable to “Trump’s war.”

Iran War Decision Lacked Assessment of Enemy Capabilities and Regional Context; Planners Failed to Anticipate Strait of Hormuz Closure, Making Bahrain Naval Bases Inaccessible and Forcing Operations From Diego Garcia 2,500 Miles Away

The war planners, according to Paine, failed to properly assess not only Iran’s weaknesses but also its strengths and the relevant regional context. Crucially, they did not anticipate Iran's predictable move to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, locking out U.S. access to its Bahrain naval base and forcing U.S. operations out of Diego Garcia, some 2,500 miles away and far less strategic. This lack of foresight has led to severe operational complications.

Paine further draws a parallel with history, pointing out the infeasibility of occupying a country the size and population of Iran (about 90 million), referencing the 1.5-million-member occupation force required for post-WWII Germany, which was smaller and more accessible.

The Trump Administration, Missing Strategic Generals Like Mattis, Appointed Ideological Figures Focused On Personnel Over Strategy, Causing Lasting Errors

Paine criticizes the staffing of the Trump administration. Previously, there were strategic generals like Mattis, but under Trump, ideological appointees focused on firing people and irrelevant characteristics instead of sound strategy. She characterizes this as dangerously unqualified leadership, undermining America's future and that of the Republican Party.

How Military Intervention Motivates Nuclear Proliferation

War Undermines Objective to Prevent Iranian Nuclear Weapons, Convinces Iran Nuclear Capability Is Essential Against American Aggression

Paine points out the strategic irony: rather than preventing Iranian nuclear weapons, the war has convinced Iran—and potentially other states—that nuclear weapons are essential for survival against American intervention, thus incentivizing proliferation "in the worst possible way."

Nuclear Agreement With Iran Managed Threat Affordably Through Inspections

Paine cites the Obama-era nuclear deal as a feasible and affordable means of limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, backed by intrusive inspections and the consent of all permanent UN Security Council members and the EU. While not perfect, it contained the threat at a bearable cost.

America's Abandonment of the Agreement Encourages Nations to Seek Nuclear Weapons to Deter Intervention

With the U.S. abandoning the agreement and pursuing direct confrontation, other nations observe t ...

How Conquest Creates Cycles of Debt and Poverty

Sarah Paine and Steven Bartlett highlight that military-obsessed regimes, such as contemporary Russia, waste enormous national wealth pursuing war. Russia’s relentless military focus has created profound economic costs during the Ukraine war: defense spending accounts for about 40% of the national budget, funneling money away from health, education, and infrastructure. The shift to a wartime economy has triggered persistent inflation and forced the Russian central bank to raise interest rates above 20%. Their lucrative European energy markets are lost, and $300 billion of central bank reserves are frozen by sanctions. Mass mobilization and the emigration of skilled workers lead to labor shortages. Meanwhile, long-range Ukrainian drone strikes have destroyed up to 50% of Russia’s oil refining capacity—a sector based on Western technology that Russia struggles to replace.

China benefits by leveraging Russia’s desperation, supplying resources like technology and raw materials at steep discounts, and using its negotiating leverage to lower prices further. Thus, Russia’s exhaustion has not only weakened itself but also strengthened China economically.

Paine points out that wars “torch wealth,” destroying more than they ever gain. The devastation in Ukraine means that even if Russia holds any conquered territory, it inherits only “a glowing mess.” This cycle of destruction extends back through Russian history; for example, Nicholas II’s costly wars drained resources that could have been devoted to vital infrastructure, like railways, which could have fed the population and aided allies in World War I. Instead, opportunity costs mounted, leading to food riots and regime collapse. Paine also notes that large-scale warfare devastated China for decades after 1911, demonstrating that military conquest is irrational for long-term national prosperity, compared to the wealth generated by peaceful commerce.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine represents a pivotal strategic error. Rather than undermining Ukraine, the war has united it. Ukrainian national identity is now forged in resistance, with institutions and innovations, such as new drones and missile capabilities, rapidly developing under siege. The backfire is stark: what was intended to destabilize has instead created a fiercely resilient adversary.

Why Dictators Lack Off-ramps, Become Desperate and Dangerous

Dictators like Putin face existential risks if they lose power. Unlike the post-Stalin Soviet model, where retired leaders received dachas and immunity from prosecution to avoid bloody succession battles, present-day Russia offers no such guarantees. Paine explains that for many autocrats, “there is no off-ramp where they’re alive.” The personal stakes for Putin and his inner circle—likely exposure to assassination or imprisonment—drive them toward increasingly desperate and unpredictable actions.

When autocrats lose power, the result is usually chaos. Paine likens the system to a mafia structure: Putin at the top, surrounded by layers of loyal “consiglieres.” Upon a dictator’s death, who takes over is unresolved and often triggers a prolonged, violent contest for power. No stable mechanisms for democratic succession exist, and the proliferation of military-trained individuals heightens the risk of civil strife. Paine estimates that, depending on the severity of the collapse, it could take up to a decade for political order to recover after the regime breaks.

Without an exit strategy, dictators can act catastrophically as they sense their grip slipping. The lack of a non-lethal off-ramp leads to “white knuckle events” where the dictator and his cronies may resort to extreme, even nuclear, measures to avo ...

Sarah Paine and Steven Bartlett discuss the mounting danger that current geopolitical tensions and reckless leadership pose to the world, highlighting the risk of nuclear escalation and the possibility of a third world war.

How Geopolitical Tensions Create Conditions For Conflict Escalation

Paine observes that history is moving rapidly, comparing it to a "log jam" that has broken apart, creating fear and uncertainty about the future. She notes the presence of reckless leaders in powerful nations who normalize lying and abandon diplomatic norms, making the international system more brittle and the risk of unintended escalation higher. Paine warns of “dark personalities” in power, such as Vladimir Putin, who is willing to inflict immense suffering without remorse. She compares the consequences of enabling such figures to the world’s failure to recognize Hitler’s threat before catastrophic harm had already occurred.

Paine highlights specific provocations, such as Putin’s recent actions violating the airspace and territorial waters of NATO members Bulgaria and Romania by sending drones, which were shot down. These incidents bring the conflict dangerously close to triggering NATO’s Article 5, an act which could bind all member states into war. European leaders fear invoking Article 5 because it would precipitate a massive and chaotic conflict.

She adds that the erosion of conflict restraints and the normalization of reckless behavior by nuclear-armed leaders dramatically increase the likelihood of miscalculation, with the potential for initial provocations or mistakes to spiral into global catastrophe.

Why Mutual Assured Destruction No Longer Provides Deterrence

Paine expresses grave concern that mutual assured destruction (MAD)—the Cold War doctrine that the threat of total annihilation would deter nuclear use—no longer provides effective deterrence. She points to former President Trump’s openness to using tactical nuclear weapons, for example against Iran, as evidence that today’s leaders feel fewer constraints than their Cold War predecessors and are more unpredictable. This unpredictability means escalation is more plausible than in past decades.

Once wars begin, Paine explains, they are easy to start but extremely hard to stop, as the losing side continually escalates to avoid defeat. The existence of nuclear weapons makes this trend apocalyptic should a conflict between major powers erupt.

Bartlett, representing a younger generation in democratic societies, admits to feeling removed from these dangers. He and many of his peers, raised in times and places of peace and order, struggle to imagine the reality of large-scale war and thus may underestimate the gravity of current threats. Paine counters with the experience of President Zelensky, who, like Bartlett, could not imagine violence on such a scale until the war in Ukraine forced him to confront it direct ...