The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman

The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century Reviews

• 
  Michael Herrman

  I was suspicious of Friedman’s argument for being able to foresee the future because it essentially boiled down to “highly competent people have very few options to choose from”. That is to say that the more competent they are, the narrower their potential band of action and the easier to guess at what they’ll do.
  
  To make his point, he invoked chess on the grandmaster level: a world-class player has few winning moves open to him, but many losing ones, and his logic is that the grandmaster will select from among those very few winning options.
  
  My first problem was that his logic on that point --a point which supports his entire analysis-- begs a few questions and makes a few assumptions, the first and most important being that policy makers are guaranteed to be grandmasters, or even sane. They aren’t even guaranteed to be competent and, in countries dominated by special interests -like the US- history provides more than a few examples of governments working against the general welfare.
  
  So Friedman’s first assertion, that governments won’t take wildly idiotic actions, I rejected out of hand. I'd like to be able to say that they don’t tend to do spectacularly stupid things, but they do them and those actions change the rest of the game all the way down the line.
  
  At this point, I was running cold.
  
  Then he did what he does do well, which is to explain the geopolitics of the post USSR world. He lays his explanation along the following foundations and, as I got into them, he started to win me back:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  *The US enjoys its current position in the world because it has large, powerful navies in the Pacific and Atlantic (as it surpassed and replaced the formal center of economic power, Atlantic Europe, after WWII)
  
  *The dissolution of the USSR set off quakes along a geopolitical fault line in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Baltics, particularly Georgia, the Ukraine, the middle east and the Balkans. We’ve been watching the reverberations around that for two decades.
  
  * Post USSR Russia has shifted strategies and has become an energy exporter; it dominates its neighbors (to include European states like Germany and Poland) with oil and natural gas because they need it and Russian hands are on the spigot.
  
  * China is cash poor, but its energy demands are rising. It also lacks a coherent ideology to keep the poor, interior population loyal to the state party. It has remained afloat (and is losing wealth) because the party makes the loans and dictates monetary policy. This has served China well in many ways, but has caused large losses since who one knows is more important than the profitability of an industry. He asserts that this causes a disconnect between the interior and the coastal, industrial areas (a historical problem in China) and may lead to fragmentation in the next couple of decades due to divergent interests in the country coupled with a weakening central ideology. Because of that, he sees a shifting appeal to nationalism, which goes hand in hand with xenophobia.
  
  *Population growth will stabilize during this century, then begin to fall. This will cause an increase in demand for labor, and increased worker migration, probably invited and encouraged, even into the US.
  
  --Updated observation: The impending automation of many job roles that are currently labor-intensive will probably be a significant counterweight to this assessment, even beyond what we've seen so far on assembly lines, for instance.
  
  *An ascendant Turkey will play a greater role in Eurasia, eventually becoming a force to be reckoned with. As this happens and Turkey comes closer to reclaiming the historical economic and military power of the old Ottoman Empire, it will shift away from the US sphere of influence while most countries in the Middle East will set aside their antipathy for the Turks and will begin to align with them.
  
  From here, he explains the context of the Osettian war with Russia, as well as Russian security concerns (the plain running through northern Europe to St. Petersburg, the historical avenue of attack for European invaders) and their interests in Eastern Europe.
  
  From here, it starts to go downhill.
  
  He explains why he thinks Germany and France will leave NATO, why Russia is concerned about US intentions in Asia and Europe, and why he believes Japan and Turkey will form an alliance: that Turkey will want to neutralize Poland and expand to the north while Japan will want to chase the US out of their sea zone. Sound crazy?
  
  When he talked history, I was right there. Man, I liked it. When he began making predictions, I wavered. I could follow and nod along with his projections for the next ten years, but after 2020 or so I considered the material to be poorly narrated speculative fiction. If one of his major players (and he acknowledges this fact) does something wildly tangential and alters the dynamic, everything else falls apart down the line.
  
  I recommend this book for the historical background and for its current appraisal of what’s making the major players around the world tick. Those two points, by themselves, make it worth a read. Even if you start to skim after the year 2020 or just throw the book away when he starts talking about war between a US/Polish alliance vs. Turkey and Japan (via a surprise attack on US space platforms with a Pearl Harbor style attack, launched from Japanese bases on the dark side of the moon) it will still be worth it --unless you’re already well informed in geopolitics.
  
  It's good. It's not Chomsky but it's good, which testifies to his skill considering the subject matter.
  
  3 solid stars.
• 
  Heidi

  I chose to read this book because someone asked people's opinion on an email list. I couldn't buy into it enough to finish it.
  
  First, we are asked to accept geopolitical analysis, then we are asked to accept that George Friedman's analysis using geopolitics is accurate, and that his angle is the only one that counts.
  
  Well I don't buy it. Most of the time he picks and chooses what specific world events to highlight to 'prove' his geopolitical forecast. I kept thinking of other events he ignored. I also kept thinking of a vastly different interpretation of those events. What it comes down to is, it's all his opinion, and since he picks and chooses what history we should look at to prove his points, his forecasts are built on sticks and cards.
  
  Especially dubious are the premises that countries will act in their best, what, Machiavellian? interests, even when one person is essentially making those decisions. So George Bush Jr. acted the way he did because it was the next step for our country to take. Right.
  
  You have to buy Reaganomics, you have to buy that this crash of 2008 was just a blip, and we still have prosperity for a real crash 20 some years from now, and nowhere does he take into account peak oil having anything to do with future economic woes...at least as far as I got.
  
  An example. He says, "...these alliances and maneuvers are not difficult to predict. As I have said, they follow well-established patterns that have been ingrained in history for many centuries. What I am doing is seeing how traditional patterns play themselves out in the context of the twenty-first century." ...this after countless arguments that could conclude just the opposite of what he posited as givens.
  
  He actually thinks Japan will rise again as a military power. Right. This would completely ignore the anti-war effect that the carpet-bombings of Tokyo and the atom bombs had on the country. I think the country has discovered what prosperity can be had by choosing not to have to build a military-industrial complex.
  
  
• 
  Dan Solomon

  I made it through the first seven chapters in, like, four enthusiastic hours. He talks some convincing shit about history and what we can extrapolate from history in order to better understand what the future might hold. It's insightful and readable and very smart.
  
  The next three chapters took about a week, and I found myself constantly checking my iPhone while I was reading it. I couldn't figure out why, and then I realized that the guy was probably just making shit up.
  
  The reason the first several chapters work is because it's realistic to think that you could predict what 2025 is going to look like - it's not really that far away, and the key players are all on the board already. But the further he gets from right now, the wackier he comes off - in order for his 2050 to be right, he's got to get everything right in 2040, and that means 2030 has to be right, and 2020, too. I don't have that much faith in this guy, and so when he talks about our forthcoming Space War With Turkey And Japan, I feel like I'm reading weird geo-political fan-fiction.
  
  If he'd called it "The Next 20 Years" and written it as a fanzine or something, I'd be recommending it to everybody I met. Instead, I don't think I'll ever even make it to the end of the thing.
• 
  Amir Tesla

  پیش بینی های جالب:
  سقوط فدراسیون روسیه در همین حدود ۲۰۲۰
  رو به افول رفتن چین
  کشورهایی که به شدت قدرتمند می شند: ترکیه، ژاپن و لهستان
  نویسنده جنگ جهانی سوم رو با حمله ژاپن به سیستم های فضایی امریکا پیش بینی می‌کنه که در این جنگ ترکیه هم پیمان ژاپن خواهد بود علیه لهستان و امریکا
  آمریکا در قرن ۲۱ ابر قدرت بلامنازع خواهد ماند و کنترل فضا رو به دست می گیره.
  
  ممکنه شبیه رمان های علمی تخیلی به نظر بیاد ولی همه پیش بینی ها حاصل. متودولوژی نویسنده مبتنی بر ژئوپالتیکس هست.
  
  در دست تکمیل
• 
  David

  Hmmm...this is a difficult book to write about for a number of reasons. Let's take a Proustian moment and beat it to death with words.
  
  The most difficult is the complexity of dealing with any topic beyond the window of 5 years. This is the problem with futurism in general. Predicting one year out is difficult but beyond 5 years you are descending into fantasy...a brief review of the futurist texts over the past 40 yrs. proves this point. Though these get a few things right most of what they have to say we now only laugh at.
  
  What makes this book interesting is that it uses the hook of geopolitics (the study of the relationship among politics and geography, demography, and economics, especially with respect to the foreign policy of a nation). This is a subject I find very interesting because it is re-emerging as a legitimate area of study after years of being held in disrepute...or, at least, being considered a tad sketchy by many academics, intellectuals, and populist pundits. Geography is important and demography is very important.
  
  However, Mr. Friedman starts losing me around 2040 and definitely loses me in his discussion of World War III (around abouts 2050)...he is essentially retelling WWII with a few geographic and technological shifts. And I do have some trouble about discounting China. I too suspect that China 'may' be a paper dragon but to sideline it in the way he has is very suspicious. I also believe his suggestion of how Mexican-Americans will think of themselves and behave at the end of the 21st century (especially since he leaves this issue unresolved) is more than a little naive.
  
  What do I think of this book as a whole? Complicated. On the one hand, I do like, or at least appreciate, what he says, mostly, until the end of the 2030s but after that his ideas become almost laughable.
  
  His acceptance and dismissal of Global Warming is very disconcerting and damages his thesis deeply. But his unwillingness to engage with environmental disasters that will have an enormous impact on geopolitics is also troubling. Disasters that 'could' occur over the next century are water shortages (inevitable), earthquakes along the Western U.S. coast (very probable) the unexploded volcano under Yellowstone national park (which could erupt taking most of North and Meso America with it), the evolution of diseases and the coming pandemics are just a few of the things that could throw his neat, rationally neat at least, thesis into hazard.
  
  But, as an act of imaginative future historiography it is compelling and readable. It is something we should all be thinking about...if only as a side project. After all, the future is where all of our children and grandchildren will have to live and we should all be concerned about the world they will find themselves in once we have turned to dust.
  
  So, in the end, I would recommend this book...but with the caveats you will have met above.
  
  Not a boring book, but one that could have used better writing, a more comprehensive and analytical imagination, and a richer palette of variables. Still, all in all, a good attempt.
  
  P.S.
  The biggest problem with this book is that it sports a blurb by the hysterical, xenophobic Lou Dobbs...one of the strangest pundits out there today and a thoroughly degraded human being.
• 
  Mohamed Al

  يعترف جورج فريدمان بكل صراحة في مقدمة الكتاب بأنه لا يمتلك بلورة سحرية يستطيع من خلالها التنبؤ بأحداث المستقبل، ولكن ما يقوم به -بكل بساطة- هو الإعتماد على التاريخ للتنبؤ بالمستقبل، وهو يقوم بذلك بطريقة إحترافية ومقنعة معتمدًا على خبرته الطويلة في تدريس النظريات السياسية وفي تقديم الاستشارات للقوات المسلّحة الأميركية حول مسائل الأمن القومي.
  
  يرصد فريدمان في كتابه هذا أهم التغيرات التى ستطرأ على العالم في القرن الحادى والعشرين من نزاعات جيوسياسية وتكنولوجية وديموجرافية وعسكرية، كما يسرد بالتفصيل أهم الأحداث التى ستقع وأهم الحروب التى ستندلع مع البحث فى أسبابها وطريقة خوضها، كما يبدد بعض الأوهام السياسية السائدة كبروز الصين كقوة عظمى وإنهيار أمريكا.
  
  يؤكد فريدمان أن الصين لا يمكن أن تتحول إلى مارد إقتصادي أو سياسي كما يردد البعض هذه الأيام، ليس خلال 100 عام على الأقل، فالصين – والكلام لفريدمان- تنقصها المقومات الرئيسية لتصبح قوة عظمى، لأنها أولاً دولة تعزلها تضاريس طبيعية عن بقية العالم، ولأنها ثانيًا لا تملك قوة بحرية يعتدّ بها، كما أنها تعاني حاليًا من توترات وصراعات داخلية.
  
  كما يختلف فريدمان مع القائلين بأن أمريكا في طريقها للنكوص، فهي ما زالت فى مرحلة المراهقة وفي طريقها للنضج، وأنها لم تشهد عصرها الذهبى بعد، فأمريكا اليوم تتربع على عرش أكبر اقتصادات العالم، كما تنتج من النفط أكثر مما تنتجه إيران أو الكويت أو الإمارات، وتأتي في المركز الثاني بعد روسيا مباشرة فى إنتاج الغاز الطبيعي.
  
  بالإضافة إلى ذلك فإن أمريكا تسيطر من خلال قواتها البحرية على جميع محيطات العالم، فأية سفينة تتحرك في أي مكان لا بد أن تكون تحت أعين الأقمار الصناعية الأمريكية، مما يعني أنها يمكن أن تغزو أي بلد دون أن تتعرض في المقابل للغزو
  
  كما يؤكد فريدمان، وهو المحلل السياسي الذكي، أن هدف أمريكا في أي حرب تخوضها أو ستخوضها لا علاقة له بفرض السلام، أو الإستقرار، أو حتى النصر، بقدر ماله علاقة بإحداث الإضطراب لمنع ظهور أي قوة عظمى قد تشكل تهديدًا لمصالحها ومركزها كقوة عالمية عظمى!
  
  يتنبأ فريدمان كذلك بظهور تركيا (إلى جانب اليابان) كقوة عظمى جديدة، إذ ستستغل تركيا فرصة ذهبية لا تعوض وذلك عندما تعصف بمصر أزمة داخلية تتطلب تدخلها كقائدة للدول الإسلامية. نبؤة أثبتت صحتها في ما نشاهده من محاولات تركية مستميتة لبسط نفوذها في هذا الجزء من العالم وفي مصر على وجه الخصوص (نُشر الكتاب في عام 2009، أي قبل إندلاع الثورة المصرية بسنتين!!)
  
  يتصور فريدمان أن الفترة المقبلة ستشهد تفوق أمريكا فى برامج عسكرة الفضاء وستستغل إمكاناتها الفضائية –التي تعمل على تطويرها الآن- فى فرض هيمنتها على سطح الأرض، على سبيل المثال يتنبأ فريدمان بأن أمريكا ستتمكن من اختراع نظام طائرات دون طيار تفوق سرعتها سرعة الصوت تكون قواعدها على الأراضي الأمريكية، ولكن غرف التحكم الخاصة بها ستكون في مراكز قيادة فضائية تدورفوق القوى العظمى المحتملة – أي تركيا واليابان.
  
  هذا الإنتهاك السافر لخصوصية هاتين الدولتين سيثير حفيظة القادة فيهما وسينتج عنه إتفاق لتشكيل تحالف لمقاومة الهيمنة الأمريكية وكسر شوكتها .. وسيؤدي ذلك إلى اندلاع الحرب العالمية الثالثة والتي ستكون تبدأ في الفضاء ثم ستنتقل إلى الأرض، ووضع لها فريدمان تفاصيل مدهشة، وعرضها بطريقة مثيرة تجعل من يقرأها يعتقد أنه يشاهد واحدا من أفلام الخيال العلمي الهوليوودية!!
  
• 
  Michael

  More like a long New Yorker article than an actual book - by which I mean it's at points breezy, totally accessible, and engaging - the book by Friedman is something of a wonder. As a lover of Sci-Fi and Speculative Fiction I thought I'd find out what someone who gets paid for a living to think about the future thought would happen in the next 100 years. Keep in mind Friedman's entire focus is geo-political but in order to make that work he does have some interesting insights into the future of culture and technology trends that will have huge impacts on who we are competing with over the next 100 years.
  
  Amazing things I learned while reading this book:
  
  1. The population explosion is rapidly coming to an end. In fact, in the next 30 years we will actually have a population shortage (see Japan's current problems now expand them to almost the entire planet).
  
  2. The role of women in society, in terms of independence, affluence, and relative power, is greater than at any time in human history. We are living in unprecedented times in this regard and this trend is only going to increase. The impact of this on traditional roles in society (particularly marriage and family structure) and on more traditional cultures (i.e. the Middle East) will be profound.
  
  3. The US will rule outer space with an iron fist and we will use that to control the planet.
  
  4. Watch out for Mexico - no really, they may be our only real competitor over the long run.
  
  5. China is not really a big deal in the long run. In fact, it may start falling apart in the next 10 years.
  
  
  I won't go into great detail about any of those things but I think he makes compelling arguments for each. In fact, when I started reading the book his intense 'geography is everything' point of view seemed kind of myopic. However, since finishing this book I've already seen several of the trends he discussed playing out in the news (i.e. hypersonic jet tests by the US military, China's current scandals and economic woes, increasing tension with Russia, etc).
  
  For anyone with a passing interest in the future I highly recommend this book. While at times the book dragged (and there is a part of me that thought "Yeah right." about his description of the mid-century world war) Friedman always seemed to correct the pacing and hook me right back in. I kind of devoured this book in about five days which, given my general lack of reading time, is pretty fast for me.
  
  Over all, check it out if you enjoy musing about the future or if you want to sound really smart at the next family function.
• 
  Ingrid

  A very interesting book, detailed. Of course the further it moves away from our times the more speculative it gets. Still, since the publication in 2009 time has proven the author right on several issues. It has taken me a long time to read, I didn't find it easy, but well worth while.
• 
  Ryan Holiday

  Books aimed at predicting the future are always dangerous and often reek of charlatanism. Books on politics and war are regularly partisan and emotional. It's impressive that The Next 100 years, a book that attempts to predict the future of both international politics and war in the coming century falls prey to none of those traps. Friedman is calm, dispassionate and articulate at each turn.
  
  His predictions are surprising in that they contradict almost everything the average person would trend outwardly from 2009. For instance, Russia and China are not the countries we ought to fear. Why? Because they're ultimately limited by their geography and strategic incentives. These are the same inhibitions that have held them back in prior centuries. Instead Friedman thinks that Turkey, Mexico and Japan are likely future enemies. Whether or not he's ends up being proven correct, his writing is educational in that he refuses to succumb to the obvious. He looks at the underlying conditions - the why - and not the individuals or the common fears.
  
  All that being said, Friedman and the book have two big weaknesses. One, Friedman uses the past to extrapolate the future. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb would retort, that's what the Thanksgiving turkey did to little success. Relying on what happened in the last twenty years as proof of what will happen in the next is dangerous and illogical. Even if you end up being right, it's because you guessed, not because you looked at the "evidence." As a result, the 21st Century in this book will apparently be almost identical to the 20th - albeit with shinier toys and more lasers. Two, this book has ZERO footnotes or references. It's unthinkable that 300 pages of political analysis and complex predictions would be without a single sourced sentence. There's not even an index to use for research.
  
  Accordingly, The Next 100 Years should be viewed as intelligent and well-written entertainment, not an academic work. Whether that was his intention, to me, is irrelevant.
• 
  أشرف فقيه

  بغض النظر عن دقة تصوراته للمستقبل، إلا أن هذا الكتاب مهم جداً في شرحه للقواعد العامة التي تفسر التاريخ وتلك التي تحكم صعود الدول وسقوطها.. من ذلك:
  1- إن الجغرافيا التاريخية هي أهم عناصر القوة الدولية
  2- من يسيطر على البحار يسيطر على طرق التجارة ويسيطر على العالم
  3- فترة 20 سنة أكثر من كافية لحدوث تغييرات جذرية في موازين القوى العالمية
  4- الصراع على الطاقة سيستمر لكن ليس في صورة نفط بل ستلعب الكهرباء والطاقة الشمسية أدواراً محورية وسيكون للقوى المسيطرة على الفضاء بالذات قصب السبق في ذلك
  
  النصف الأول من الكتاب أكثر ثارة للهتمام من نصفه الثاني والمكرس بكليته تقريباً لشرح الحالة الأميركية وقراءة مستقبلها بشكل قد يغلب عليه الإغراق في الفانتازية.
  يخلص الكاتب إلا أن عصر الهيمنة الأميركية سوف لن ينحسر خلال المئة عام القادمة بل سيستمر مع وجود مضايقات من قوى عظمى ناشئة حددها في: تركيا، بولندا واليابان، مع احتمال انضمام المكسيك للقائمة. والمكسيك في نظره ستشكل الخطر الأكبر على الهيمنة الأميركية لأسباب ديموغرافية بحتة.
  
  لا يكاد يوجد للعالم العربي أي وجود حقيقي على خارطة النفوذ للقرن القادم وفق هذا الكتاب. أما دويلات النفط الخليجية، فيقول أنها ستغدوا أثراً بعد عين قبل انقضاء المئة عام بكثير.
  
  من يعش يرَ!
• 
  فهد الفهد

  The Next 100 Years
  
  كتاب جريء، محاولة استكناه التغيرات الجيوسياسية لمئة عام قادمة مهمة شبه مستحيلة ولكن ما يقدمه جورج فريدمان هنا يستحق القراءة والاهتمام، واستغرب كيف لم تتم ترجمة هذا الكتاب بعد رغم مرور 9 سنوات على صدوره، صحيح أن بعض فصول الكتاب تبدو كخيال علمي بحروب الفضاء التي يتوقعها فرديمان بل ويحدد الأطراف التي ستشنها ولكنه في النهاية يقدم رؤى جيوسياسية ممتازة ومنذرة.
  
• 
  Ellis

  This book bases projections on so many layers of assumptions that all depend on each other being true that it's discussion of power and national relationships are probably as likely to come to pass as me lassoing the Easter Bunny and eating him/her for Easter dinner. Aside from the silliness of the arguments in this book, any new occurrence can completely destroy all of Friedman's projections. For example, how will the recent discovery of vast mineral resources in Afghanistan affect its future strength and the author’s estimated future strength of Turkey? The author can't/doesn't say because the resources were found after this book was published and the author's projections couldn't/didn't account for any new information that may come to light. Again, the future is fun (except for in the last half of this book - maddening) to think about, but it's just too difficult to "see" very far into the future.
  
  Another thing I'm not a real fan of is this author's willingness to throw America into war (these ideas are also in display in other writing by this author: Americas Secret War) simply to maintain American wealth. Yes, it is nice to have the standard of living that we do, but, personally, I'd rather be in second place rather than drop bombs on people just so I can have a 50-inch rather than a 42-inch television. If I could be in second place and enjoy a peaceful world then I'd step off the gold-medal podium with joy!
• 
  ⚧️ Nadienne Greysorrow ⚧️

  Being that this book is already 10+ years old, one can evaluate Mr. Friedman's predictions up to the year 2020 with actuality. China has not broken up, but Russia is indeed resurgent. His notion of a new Cold War has not yet seemed to materialize; however, I squarely blame that on the actions of one soon to be ex-President Trump. No, I'm not a Russian Conspiracy subscriber - though I do believe they have interfered in our elections, just as we interfere in everyone else's. But, I do believe that had we another President, one not as beholden to and in love with, Vladimir Putin, we would definitely be in a far more adversarial position with Russia than we currently are. It seems we've forgotten that Russia illegally seized the Crimean Peninsula.
  
  It will be interesting to see if the next 10 years develops in the ways that Mr. Friedman predicts.
  
  Whilst there may be heavy doses of speculation in here (that's pretty much the entire book), I don't see it as baseless speculation.
• 
  Matt McGlynn

  Pretty interesting read. I think this came out in the mid 2000's and some of the Russia, China, and United States is already proving true. With that said, I don't totally agree with everything Friedman's laying down but time will tell!
• 
  Bruno Gremez

  In this 2009 version, George Friedman tried to predict possible geopolitical events and major trends of the 21st century. A little bit in the spirit of "The rise and the fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy, he analyses the strengths and weaknesses of a large number of important countries in order to forecast how the world could look like in the next 2 or 3 decades and who would dominate it.
  
  George Friedman, contrary to many, speculates that the US will retain their dominance. To some extent, his argumentation is based on some objective and strong facts, the main ones being the very favourable geopolitical location of the US, with direct access to major oceans and no border shared with direct enemies, and the availability of a wide range of resources to support such dominance.
  Another strength of the US is its formidable and tested ability to easily assimilate migrants in a century that will inevitably be characterised by major immigration, especially from the Southern to the Northern hemisphere.
  
  A major shortcoming of this analysis to my view is that too little emphasis is placed on the impact of climate change. This is surprising since it is already happening and will have immediate effects on geopolitics. How will climate change impact major countries, including the US? How will the US cope with scare water resources? What will the US do when its agriculture is affected by climate change and water scarcity? How, when and where will that cause new conflicts? It is really unfortunate that George Friedman failed to reflect on these imminent and fundamental changes and their effects.
  
  Instead, the book speculates on major technological advances that may take place in the course of the 21st century in order to figure out how the world could look like towards the end of the century. This part of the analysis appeared to me to be futile, for two main reasons.
  
  First, it seems a bit presumptuous to anticipate the kind of technological progress that human kind will bring in 80 years from now, while nobody had imagined the upcoming importance of internet 25 years ago for instance. How could anyone, with any sort of reasonable certainty and scientific accuracy, foresee how the world will have changed technologically 25 years from now, let alone towards the end of the 21st century.
  
  Second and more importantly, many of these technological advances will according to me be determined to a very large extent, directly or indirectly, by our global efforts to cope with and address the causes and effects of climate change. But, as explained, the importance of the issue of climate change has unfortunately not been recognised by the author.
  
  Review by Bruno Gremez
• 
  Kathryn Bashaar

  This book was an entertaining read and a lot of it seemed to make sense. What I didn't like was the cynical, amoral tone, the premise that, look, nation states will do what they do for self-interest and one is not necessarily better than the other. I vehemently disagree. The U.S. is not perfect and not always moral, but we have certain values that we stand for in our foreign policy and our national life in general, and it DOES matter who dominates the world. Ask yourself this: when the Russians were closing in from the east and the western allies were closing in from the west at the end of WW2, which direction did the Germans flee and why? I rest my case.
• 
  Zach Bartlett

  This book sucked. The author got way too hyper-specific on theoretical events he thinks will take place 50+ years from now. He even went as far to specify an exact time (Thanksgiving 5:00PM) when a theoretical war would occur between USA/Turkey/Japan. Swing and a miss.
• 
  Lauren

  At a certain level, when it comes to the future, the only thing one can be sure of is that common sense will be wrong. - George Friedman
  
  PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
  Author George Friedman states, "underneath the disorder of history, my task is to try to see the order-and to anticipate what events, trends, and technology that order will bring forth." He states his primary goal as transmitting a sense of the new century by identifying "the major tendencies - geopolitical, technological, demographic, cultural, military.”
  
  He defines geopolitics as "a method for thinking about the world and forecasting what will happen down the road." He goes on to draw a comparison between geopolitics and economics, specifically the invisible hand. Instead of an invisible hand driving self-interested, short-term activities of people accumulating wealth, as defined by Adam Smith, the invisible hand is driving behavior of nations. Economics and geopolitics alike make some assumptions. First and foremost, both assume the parties are rational and will act in their own short-term self-interest. Friedman relies on this assumption to "predict" the future. He claims, "as rational actors, reality provides them with limited choices.” Drawing on the stated assumption, when a nation is faced with choices, it will act in what it thinks is its best interest.
  
  Before Friedman can lay out the next hundred years, he must sum up the previous century, he, after all, draws upon historical trends in his forecasts and takes us back to the turn of the last century. It was thought that war within Europe would be impossible due to growing interdependence as a result of growing trade and foreign investment. We know that the 20st century was not a Pax Europa after all. Interdependence actually bought more parties into the fight thus making it a truly "global conflict". True, no one would have predicted World Wars I and II but the real heart of the European conflict was quite evident, "Germany, having united in 1871, was a major power in an insecure position (trapped between Russia and France) and wanted to redefine the European and global systems." The exact dates could not have been predicted but the fact that there was going to be ward over Germany's status in Europe was obvious when viewed in the context of geopolitics.
  
  BOOK SUMMARY
  If we use German unification as our historic example, we must, identify the 21st century's "pivotal event." Friedman is quick to point out that right now, it would appear that Islamic militants will be an ever present foe. He compares the current Islamic strife with our conflict with Spain and the Spanish-American war of 100 years ago-for all intents and purposes - lost to history.
  
  The author asserts that "there is a deep-seated belief in America that the united states is approaching the eve of its desertion." He goes on to point out though, "all of this foreboding was present during the presidency of Richard Nixon, together with many of the same issues." Additionally, he states, “psychologically, the United States is a bizarre mixture of overconfidence and insecurity.” He comments that this combinations is typically found in the psychology of the adolescent mind. The United States has been likened to a teenager.
  For the short term, however—and by that I mean the next hundred years—I will argue that the United States’ power is so extraordinarily overwhelming, and so deeply rooted in economic, technological, and cultural realities, that the country will continue to surge through the twenty-first century, buffeted though it will be by wars and crises.
  
  But how did the European Age become the American Age? What global events led to this shift in power across the Atlantic Ocean to a relatively new country? Why? “In order to understand the twenty-first century, it is important to understand the fundamental structural shifts that took place late in the twentieth century.”
  
  The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, 499 years after Columbus’s expansion, ended an entire age in history. For the first time in half a millennium, power no longer resided in Europe, nor was Europe the focal point of international competition. After 1991, the sole global power in the world was the United States, which had become the center of the international system.
  
  Europe reigned supreme for 500 years. It is noted though, “Europe was neither the most civilized not the most advanced region in the world… Europe really was a technical and intellectual backwater in the fifteenth century as opposed to China or the Islamic world. Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, considered the greatest American geopolitical thinker argues that “control of the sea equals command of the world.” Europe may not have had the technology but it had the money, the ambition, and most importantly, the strategic geographic location. “Over the next several centuries, European ships, guns, and money dominated the world and created the first global system, the European Age.” Friedman notes though, “Europe dominated the world, but it failed to dominate itself. For five hundred years Europe tore itself apart in civil wars, and as a result there was never a European empire.
  
  The American Age may have begun in December 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. But the twenty-first century really began on September 11, 2001when the United States was presented with its first real test. “At the moment, the U.S.–jihadist conflict appears so powerful and of such overwhelming importance that it is difficult to imagine it simply fading away.” He goes on to point out, “there is one more element of the American dynamic that we must cover: the grand strategy that drives American foreign policy. This is where policy making ends and includes all of the processes that constitute national power. “U.S. strategic goals, and U.S. grand strategy, originate in fear.”
  
  There is a natural tendency in the international system to want to move to an equilibrium. Smaller, less powerful nations join together and form coalitions with other countries to check the reach of the larger, powerful nations. The fall of the Soviet Union has left the international community in a great imbalance. Because of this imbalance, “we see this contradiction: on the one hand, the United States is deeply resented and feared; on the other hand, individual nations still try to find a way to get along with the United States.”
  Old institutions have shattered, but new ones have not yet emerged. The twenty-first century will be a period in which a range of new institutions, moral systems, and practices will begin their first tentative emergence. The first half of the twenty-first century will be marked by intense social conflict globally. All of this frames the international struggles of the twenty-first century.
  
  Friedman draws an analogy with between geo-politics and geo-logy. It is not a guarantee that a fault line will produce an earthquake, but if there were to be an earthquake, a fault line would be an obvious place to start looking. He spends the remainder of the book identifying five possible fault lines that will generate conflict in the 21st Century.
  
  The first fault line is through the Pacific Basin. The US Navy dominates this area. The countries located there are entirely dependent on the United State for trade. China and Japan are two possible threats – or rather, China and Japan may view US control of the shipping lanes as a threat.
  
  The second line is located in Eurasia. After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was no true strong Russian Federation. There are many interested parties in this area (also known as Central Asia) and in nearby areas (Eastern Europe, Turkey, China) that will try to extend their reach into this “poachers paradise”.
  
  The third and a bit surprising fault lines lays over Europe as “there is continuing doubt about the ultimate framework of Europe. For five centuries, Europe has been an arena of constant warfare. For last sixty years it has been either occupied or trying to craft a federation that would make the return of war impossible. Europe may yet have to deal with the resurgence of Russia, the bullying of the United States, or internal tensions. The door is certainly not closed on conflict.”
  
  The fourth and certainly not surprising is in is the Islamic world. He notes though, “it is not instability that is troubling, but the emergence of a nation-state that, regardless of ideology, might form the basis of a coalition. Historically, Turkey has been the most successful center of power in the Muslim world. Turkey is also a dynamic and rapidly modernizing country.” Friedman contends that at first, the US – Turkey relationship will be a strong and beneficial one, but one not to last long as both nations will begin to see the other as a threat. He goes so far as to predict that Turkey and Japan will form an alliance and will go to war with the United States and its allies. Most notable of these allies is Poland. Poland will hold back Russia and block Turkish advances into Europe. There will be losses on both sides but, the United States will be victorious since no other country or coalition can match its military. Wars will be fought from space. Friedman does not draw us a picture of Star Wars but explains that the space wars will be fought more in the way that all sea movements will be viewed and controlled from stations he jokingly calls “Battle Stars”. As a result of the war with Turkey and Japan, the US will retain the sole rights to militarize space but will partner will and allow other nations to develop commercial interests in the great unknown.
  
  The fifth and final fault line is what, up until now, has been little more than a domestic issue of illegal immigration. “Normally, the status of Mexico would not rise to the level of a global fault line, but its location in North America makes it important beyond its obvious power. The situation will be left in a stalemate.
  Friedman concludes his outline of possible events with,
  Therefore, as the twenty-first century draws to a close, the question will be: North America is the center of gravity of the international system, but who will control North America? That is a question that will have to wait until the twenty-second century. The unintended consequence is what this book is all about. If human beings can simply decide on what they want to do and then do it, then forecasting is impossible. Free will is beyond forecasting. But what is most interesting about humans is how unfree they are.”
  
• 
  Brandon

  This book takes a very pragmatic approach to predicting the geopolitical future. In some ways,
  geopolitics is strictly the pragmatic reading of current events and how they unfolded.
  I found it most interesting when the author discussed the population explosion in the 20th century, and now the significant drop in birth rate. This will lead to a world wide population peak of 9 Billion, then a steady drop over the entire 21st century. I was fairly confident in my geography before reading this book. However, I still needed to reference a map many times during my listening. He speculates foreign conflict (wars) during the 2050s and 2080s. I do not know enough foreign affairs to rebuttal or affirm his prediction. It is a fun read, but not a book for everyone.
• 
  Book Shark

  The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman
  
  "The Next 100 Years" is an interesting look at what the twenty-first century will look and feel like based on geopolitics. It's a book that speculates the future by using history, trends and by applying the decline and fall of Europe as the centerpiece and its replacement the United States as its model. The author focuses on who would resist and how the United States would respond to their resistance as the driving forces behind his vision. Accomplished author, political scientist and futurist George Friedman takes the reader on a journey into the future. This 253-page book is composed of the following thirteen chapters: 1. The Dawn of the American Age, 2. Earthquake: The U.S. - Jihadist War, 3. Population, Computers, and Culture Wars, 4. The New Fault Lines, 5. China 2020: Paper Tiger, 6. Russia 2020: Rematch, 7. American Power and the Crisis of 2030, 8. A New World Emerges, 9. The 2040s: Prelude to War, 10. Preparing for War, 11. World War: A Scenario, 12. The 2060s: A Golden Decade and 13. 2080: The United States, Mexico, and the Struggle for the Global Heartland.
  
  Positives:
  1. The always fascinating topic of the future in the hands of a capable futurist.
  2. Well-written and entertaining book. Thought provoking to boot.
  3. Good and effective use of charts and maps to aid the reader.
  4. Shares his method and reasoning on how he forecasts the future.
  5. The focus of this book is geopolitics. The term is well defined and applied.
  6. An interesting look at American culture. "American culture is the manic combination of exultant hubris and profound gloom". The different states of cultures.
  7. Many fascinating facts, tidbits and trends. Dramatic global decline in birthrates as an example.
  8. Many interesting historical references.
  9. The book focuses on who would resist and how the United States would respond to their resistance. The book explains American responses in fifty-year cycles. Spoiler alert. "First there is Islam, then Russia, and then a coalition of new powers (Turkey, Poland, and Japan), and finally Mexico".
  10. The five geopolitical goals that drive the United States grand strategy.
  11. The five new areas of the world right now that are viable candidates as fault lines. Great stuff.
  12. Interesting and controversial take on China.
  13. An interesting look at the rise and fall of Russia, yet again and why the author expects that to be so.
  14. A look at American history through fifty-year cycles.
  15. A look at the rise of potential new and old powers: Turkey, Poland and Japan.
  16. The relationship between the United States and the rest of the world during the mid twenty-first century. Pressures and alliances.
  17. A fascinating look at space dominance. Battle Stars...it could happen.
  18. A look at a new kind of war that will take place this mid century. Science fiction meets reality. A speculative look at World War II.
  19. A look at a golden decade, the 2060s.
  20. The Mexican challenge. Immigration, a rising power and the crisis of 2080.
  
  Negatives:
  1. No notes or formal bibliography.
  2. Friedman accepts global warming as a scientific fact yet downplays its role into the future by suggesting that the end of population explosion alternative energy sources will make the issue moot.
  3. It's impossible to predict the future. Most likely the author will be wrong on not only the details but about what countries will be great powers and how they will resist the United States.
  4. I tend to disagree with the author's future of China and have serious doubts on other issues...but that's ok.
  
  In summary, I have to say I enjoyed this book. In order to enjoy a book of this nature one must accept the fact that this is educated speculation. We don't know what the future may bring; all you can do is predict based on major tendencies what might take place. Friedman does a commendable job of providing a plausible scenario for the future and acknowledges that he may get many of the details wrong. What makes this book fun to read is the journey, the idea that one can speculate about the future and how it plays out in reality. If you allow yourself to speculate about our globe for the next one hundred years, this is a book worth reading. Have fun.
  
  Further recommendations: "The Next Decade: Empire and Republic in a Changing World" and "The Future of War: Power, Technology and American World Dominance in the Twenty-first Century" by the same author, "The World in 2050: Four Forces Shaping Civilization's Northern Future" by Lawrence C. Smith, "Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives by the Year 2100" by Michio Kaku, "Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans" by David Niose, "Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines" by Richard A. Muller, "Winner Take All: China's Race for Resources and What It Means for the World" by Damisa Mojo, "The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality" by Richard Heinberg, "The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment" by Chris Martenson, "Aftershock" by Robert B. Reich, "Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil" by Peter Maass, and "The Post-American World 2.0" by Fareed Zakaria.
• 
  هارون

  قرأت هذا الكتاب منذ سنتين وأعدت قراءته الآن ، الكتاب عجيب جداً ، معظم ما كان في الكتاب حدث او ما زال يحدث وبعض ما في الكتاب يحدث الآن مثل تنبؤ الكاتب بحرب احتمالية بين الروس والاوروبيين وهذا ما يحدث الآن ، الروس شنّوا حرب مدمرة على اوكرانيا والدول الاوروبية تفرض عقوبات على روسيا وروسيا بدورها قطعت الغاز عنهم ، الكاتب ايضاً ذكر قيام دول كقوى عظمى او تكون اقوى مما هي عليه الآن بكثير في منتصف هذا القرن اي خلال ٢٠-٣٠ سنة القادمة وهذه الدول هي تركيا ، بولندا ، المكسيك ، اليابان
  
  اضافةً الى مواضيع اخرى كالحرب بين امريكا والعالم الاسلامي مثل الجهاديين واسامة بن لادن والجماعات الارهابية ، ايضاً ناقش مسئلة التناقص السكاني ومواضيع اخرى
  
  انصح بقراءة هذا الكتاب فهو رائع جداً
• 
  Brit Cheung

  Even it is hard to predict what would happen in a decade，and a 100-year prediction is not only audacious but as near as pretentious to be far beyond any one's ability，not matter he is an Oracle or a maniac.
  The book was written in 2009 and now is 2020，you can recheck some facts are far beyond the truth as it is in one decade.
  Each country is so different from Each other and it is not Okay to extrapolate from the so called general trend. at least，the prediction on China of the author cannot bear the close scrutiny of what really happened during the past 10 years.
• 
  Daniel Clausen

  In a sense, I’m divided: Do I give this book four stars or five stars?
  
  Ironically, the things I like most about this book make me want to rate it a four. I love the book because it’s highly engaging, easy to read, and at times refuses to take itself (and the art of forecasting) too seriously.
  
  I also love the book because it’s irreverent. Friedman’s “geopolitics” – as a kind of Greek or Shakespearean tragedy where the actors are not in control of themselves and even smart characters cannot help succumbing to the logic of their situation—is kind of an affront to the work of peace researchers, political scientists, and policy wonks of different varieties who try to prescribe solutions like doctors.
  
  As Friedman points out again and again: “One interesting facet of geopolitics is this: there are no permanent solutions to geopolitical problems.”
  [Imagine if this mantra was stamped above International Relations, Political Science, and Peace Studies Departments! Imagine if it was on the wall of the State Department. ]
  
  In a book where so many outrageous predictions are made – on the logic that when looking to the future one has to be prepared for the outrageous – one has to wonder what the actual value of the forecast is.
  
  I actually think the theory behind the book and the journey he takes us through is the most important part of the book – not the specific details of the forecast (which are sure to be wrong in more than a number of ways).
  
  I see Friedman’s work as – in a way – an iteration of Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan and Anti-Fragile. Key points from that book: most forecasters are charlatans; predication is a liberal art; the things one doesn’t know are as important as the things one knows.
  
  So, does Friedman understand that he is a charlatan, involved in a kind of quackery? I think he does. (It's hard to be quack if you know you're a quack). I think he lays out a vision of geopolitics that is straightforward, but that is well-qualified. I think he is also pretty clear that he expects to be wrong in a number of ways. He also acknowledges that practical leaders tend to focus on the short-term problems – as they should. Does Friedman know that predication is a liberal art? The answer is a resounding yes! Does Friedman understand the value of the things he doesn’t know? Yes again!
  
  So here we have a harmless piece of engaging quackery. But to gain five stars, the book should be more than that, shouldn’t it? I think the book does go beyond merely the engaging and entertaining for one reason – it teaches us through practice not to take the future for granted and to expect the unexpected. As far as quackery goes – one based in history, geography, the liberal arts, and the things one doesn’t know – this quackery seems to me highly advanced. I’m not sure! I’ll have to give it another read.
  
  It also throws out a challenge to other International Relations scholars – don’t forget the enduring realities of geopolitics.
  
  "There are no permanent solutions to geopolitical problems” – perhaps I will have that tattooed to my forehead!
  
• 
  uosɯɐS

  Most of the futurist stuff I read is very technology centric. In this one, the forecasts for technology are actually quite modest, and instead most of the thought processes center around geopolitics, or as Orson Scott Card calls it "The Great Game." Yes, the future will have "Wars and rumours of wars... " always a safe forecast when the past is full the same. Probably not going to stop anytime soon... though I'm willing to be convinced if anybody has any theories. *shrug*
  
  He does mention women's changing roles in society, particularly as they get educated and participate in the world of work, and how this is causing falling birthrates and changes in social ideas about family. However, he doesn't seem to anticipate the idea of women gaining power in the world outside the home, and what changes that might cause (Personally, I suspect women leaders will be less hell-bent on so much war. Fortune and glory are nice if you can get them, but not really worth risking life and limb and mutually beneficial relationships. Boring, steady progress is the safer bet).
  
  Also, he spend much of the book talking about population dynamics: ageing societies with falling birthrates, and what this will do to countries and economies (Reminds me of:
  The Great Depression Ahead: How to Prosper in the Crash Following the Greatest Boom in History). He doesn't bring up robotics until about the 2060s, and even then it's more in the context of wars in space...
  
  An interesting book, but the perspective is far too traditional in my opinion. Change is in the air, surely, but I think there's more to it than just different wars...
• 
  Rodrigo

  To talk about this book I'll use a word Friedman uses as a disclaimer: far-fetched. I mean, I enjoyed it indeed and, even when English is not my mother language, reading it was fast and easy. Sadly we cannot say whether he's wrong or right, and most of his readers will be long dead when the events he's foreseeing will (or will not) occur. Nevertheless it was really interesting to get a sight of what the world could be like in 60 or 70 years. Some things sound perfectly logic and probable: the US dominating the world, the decay of Europe, the rise of new powers such as Japan, Turkey or Mexico, but there are some others that are simply hard to imagine, let alone to believe. Of course, as he says, world's history is full of examples of unexpected, illogical, impossible events, shifts that no one could ever foresee and yet they occured. Whatever it is, this book is really interesting. If taken as an almost sci-fi tale, it's great. If taken as a serious analysis of what the world geopolitics is and will be, is great too. A little bit out of date (written in 2010), there are some assumptions that are already realities or simply didn't happen, but basically still useful.
• 
  Maria

  Friedman hypothesizes what the future will look like using geopolitical theories and trends based on populations, resources and historical precedents.
  
  Why I started this book: Predictive books are fascinating, especially if you read them 5-15 years after they are published. Like this book of 2009.
  
  Why I finished it: Friedman was very clear on his logic and his assumptions which made them more believable. However I couldn't refrain from an eye roll or two as he talked about how 2020s were going to be a golden age of immigration as countries competed with themselves to attract workers. Cause in 2017, everyone hates Mexicans and refugees. I also didn't quiet believe the Japan and China scenario... as they still hate each other. But I was encourage by the belief that America is not on the way down. Plus the predicted break up of China was more believable after watching this
  History of Everything.