Robert D. Kaplan: “There may be peace in Ukraine or a new Chinese leader, but the ongoing crisis will continue.”

Robert D. Kaplan (New York, 1952) has spent decades traveling the globe, both as a correspondent, including the Iran-Iraq War, and analyzing it in books such as Balkan Ghosts and Geography's Revenge . Essays on geopolitics, on the weight of geography, history and power in relations between nations. His knowledge of the horrors of Saddam Hussein's Iraq led him to support the 2003 invasion, but he soon regretted it, clinical depression included, upon seeing the bloody anarchy that ensued.

Nowhere to escape “Technology today shrinks geography; the world is more claustrophobic and anxious.”

Now he's publishing Tierra baldía (RBA), an essay that reads almost like an opera in three acts and portrays a contemporary world in which the great powers—the US, Russia, and China—are in decline and crises are the new normal. Aided by a technology that inflames emotions and eliminates moderation. A world he compares to the permanent crisis of the Weimar Republic, though he's not expecting a Hitler. Kaplan spoke yesterday at the Ramón Areces Foundation in Madrid and will speak today at the RBA Auditorium in Barcelona.

What does it mean that we are living in a geopolitical Weimar today?

Weimar was a period in Germany between 1919 and 1933 of permanent crisis. The country was a vast system with no one in control. The design of the Constitution made it almost impossible for anyone to acquire too much power. And there was a sense of permanent crisis. Today's world is similar because technology has shrunk geography so that the world is more claustrophobic, more anxious, and overlapping. There is nowhere to escape. We feel the events in the Middle East much more intensely than before.

Weimar ended in a major catastrophe. Are we doomed, close?

No, we're not doomed. But this is the new normal. And there will be positive and negative periods. Iran could have a better regime in a few months or years, and the war in Ukraine could end. There could be new leadership in China. But even with all these events, the permanent crisis will continue. This isn't fatalism. It's the intensity of world politics, of geopolitics.

Obama already asked for it "The EU needs to increase its defense budget now. And 5% might not be enough."

Has the invasion of Ukraine pushed the world into a ruleless order, or was that order a dream?

For 80 years, Europe's defenses were financed and maintained by the U.S. Europe was warned, but did nothing. That period ends with an American president less interested in Europe and a Russian one who has invaded one of its core countries.

Is Trump right to ask NATO for more money?

Not just Trump. Obama demanded that Europe drastically increase its defense budget. Every president has argued with Europe. And now we have this crisis.

Did Europe make a mistake? Perhaps Germany, in thinking that trade was enough to combat conflict?

Yes, Germany made a bad bet on Putin. They thought they had him contained, that they could handle him. Germany had a great situation. It was defended by the US, got its oil and natural gas from Russia, and got rich trading with China. It was technically a NATO member, but in reality it was a neutral country. And this blows up in its face. Now they have a chancellor, Merz, who is much more realistic. The EU needs to increase its defense budget now. And 5% might not be enough. The world is smaller. Europe doesn't have oceans on either side like the US. And it's close to Africa, the Middle East, and Russia.

Is Israel's attack on Iran, which you already mentioned in your book, another chapter of the new order?

It could lead to a better regime in Iran. And I think it will lead to a ceasefire in Gaza, as the successful conclusion of the war with Iran has given Netanyahu the political opportunity to seek a ceasefire there. That could entail new elections, the breakup of his coalition. Only with a triumphant victory over Iran could he win new elections with a new coalition. We are seeing the beginnings. Netanyahu will go to Washington, I believe, in a few days, to meet with Trump. That would not happen unless he has made concessions on Gaza.

“In 1979, Iran went from a Shah's regime to one of the ayatollahs overnight. There was no chaos.”

Regime change was looming in Iran. Could it be a disaster like in Iran and Afghanistan?

Iran is a Persian country. It's not Arab. Everything is very different. In 1979, it went from a Shah's regime to one of the Ayatollahs overnight. There was no chaos. Any regime change probably won't lead to the chaos that occurred in Libya, Iraq, and Syria.

Have Netanyahu's attacks on Gaza been excessive, or genocide, as some call it?

October 7th was a war crime. And Israel had an enemy hiding behind hospitals, schools, and mosques. It was impossible to seriously damage Hamas without killing a significant number of civilians. And it wasn't just Hamas. On October 8th, Hezbollah launched numerous missiles at northern Israel, causing 120,000 Israelis to flee. That would be equivalent to nearly one million Spaniards. Imagine if one million Spaniards were hit by missiles from France. What would Spain do? Europe lives in a post-national paradise, but the Middle East is still in a previous century. The Israeli attack on Hamas may have been excessive, many in Israel believe. The ferocity of October 7th changed the Israeli mindset.

Can two states coexist?

Gaza has been virtually independent for almost 20 years. The last settler left in 2005. And look what he did. Brilliant political scientists can find solutions to the Palestinian problem, but it's the politics that are difficult.

He says that the great empires, China, Russia and the US, are in decline.

Russia, because every year the war in Ukraine lasts weakens its ability to project power in Central Asia and the Far East. We see an imperial decline, even though it appears to be winning the war. And everyone is impressed by Chinese AI and its influence in Latin America and Africa, but hundreds of billions of dollars have fled China. The Chinese don't trust China, their economic situation. The debt level is astronomical. Xi Jinping's Leninist authoritarianism could be the last phase of communism in China. I don't think his position is so secure.

And the US is also in decline?

Because of the loss of the political center. Instead of a center-right Republican Party, there's a radical right-wing populist one. And instead of a center-left Democratic Party, there's a radical left-wing populist one. There's less room for compromise.

“AI is more conducive to autocracy than to democracy because it leads to control and increasingly removes humans from the equation.”

After Trump's re-election, are you worried about possible tyranny?

Yes, because the genius of the American system lies in its separation of powers. And Trump is attacking them. He has no respect for the judiciary. He takes anyone who opposes him personally and attacks them. Yes, I'm worried.

And he is concerned about how technology is changing politics.

AI is more conducive to autocracy than to democracy because it leads to control and increasingly removes humans from the equation. Then, social media is based on emotion, brevity, passion. And while everyone celebrates passion and says you have to be passionate, I don't believe it. Passion is the enemy of analysis and leads to worse governments and worse decisions.

He talks about Oswald Spengler and his book "The Decline of the West." Is the Western world in decline?

I think we're following Spengler's theory. His ideas are very dark and pessimistic, but he was right. Everything today is about entertainment.

What is the future of liberalism amid polarization?

You have to constantly fight for it. Liberalism is about not being ideological, not being self-confident, having an open and insecure mind. And that's good. Today, everyone tells people, "You have to believe in this, in that." I think we have to fight for liberalism, especially now.