The recent publication of the National Security Strategy (NSS) has reignited debates within geopolitical circles about the present and future power dynamics of the world. The NSS structure itself often relies on traditional geographical blocks (Western Hemisphere, Europe, Asia, Middle East, Africa), but every strategic decision relies upon an underlying assessment of how the world is economically and politically organized. This requires moving beyond simple geographic divisions.
Although lucid and persuasive in many areas, the limitation of the NSS’s geographical grouping is that it often forces ideological allies (like Japan and the US) into different strategic buckets while grouping ideological antagonists (like Iran and Israel) into the same Middle East box. Rather than relying on geographic categorization, a philosophical mapping offers a more predictive framework for strategic planning. This requires defining regions according to their core beliefs about governance, economic organization, and the individual.
As the prominent historian and scholar Stephen Kotkin rightly points out, concepts like “the West” are not geographic but rather political and philosophical. Adherence to core principles, such as the rule of law, is what makes geographically distant nations like Japan and Australia politically part of the West. Conversely, Russia, despite its deep geographical roots in Eurasia, is often understood as politically and philosophically aligned with the “East” due to its governance style, its history of autocratic rule, and its distinct ideological project that often conflicts with Western liberalism.
In this spirit, we are going to attempt to organize the world not along traditional geographic boundaries but along philosophical boundaries, where shared core ideas, governance models, and historical trajectories define the sphere of influence. Here are new organizing blocks based on predominant philosophical and economic models, forming what I think are the true strategic spheres of the 21st century:
Liberal-Universalist Sphere (aka The West)
The Core Philosophy of this sphere is rooted in the Enlightenment and the Rule of Law—the belief that political, economic, and individual rights are universal, inalienable, and guaranteed by impersonal institutions (Constitutionalism, Independent Judiciary). The economic model is democratic capitalism, emphasizing private property, open markets, and globalized trade managed by strong, accountable governments. The internal tension is the management of Hamiltonian global market interests versus the protectionism of Jacksonian domestic populism. Key geographies include US/Canada, Western/Northern Europe (EU Core), Australia/New Zealand, Japan and South Korea. Their strategic goal is the maintenance and expansion of the “rules-based international order” and management of global commons.
Predominant Philosophy: John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, and John Rawls (maxmin principle seems to guide most EU policies)
Developmental-Authoritarian Sphere
This sphere is defined by the absolute prioritization of national power and material progress guided by a single, centralized state entity. Its Core Philosophy is Pragmatic Developmentalism (The “What is to be Done?” philosophy), where ideology is subservient to the practical goal of national rejuvenation and technological supremacy. This model rejects the Western notion that political freedom is a prerequisite for prosperity, instead prioritizing state control over political pluralism. The Economic Model is State-Guided/Authoritarian Capitalism, where market mechanisms are subordinate to the long-term political goals of the ruling elite, with a focus on infrastructure and economic sovereignty. The Strategic Goal is the achievement of great power status, the protection of the single-party system, and the establishment of a viable alternative to the Liberal-Universalist model.
Predominant Philosophy: Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Nikolay Chernyshevsky (for the emphasis on revolutionary, pragmatic action over abstract theory).
Civilizational-Conservative Sphere
This sphere is characterized by the philosophical rejection of western liberal universality in favor of a unique, historically rooted, and often orthodox or traditionalist view of state, society, and identity. The core philosophy is civilizational realism, prioritizing sovereignty, national exceptionalism, and traditional religious/cultural values over multilateralism and abstract individual rights. The political stance views the state as a singular, historically continuous entity, not merely a contract. The Economic model is resource-based State capitalism, highly centralized around state control of key natural resources (hydrocarbons, minerals) to fund geopolitical ambitions and maintain domestic stability. The strategic goal is the undermining of perceived Western hegemony and the establishment of a multipolar world order defined by spheres of influence and great power competition.
Predominant Philosophy: Edmund Burke (foundational conservatism), Oswald Spengler (civilizational decline).
Sovereign-Autonomy Sphere
This massive, diverse sphere comprises the middle and emerging powers that refuse to align permanently with any of the major philosophical poles, prioritizing their own autonomy and immediate material interests. The core philosophy is strategic non-alignment/transactionalism. The governing principle is flexibility, pragmatically pursuing national gain by leveraging competition between the major spheres. The Political Stance ranges from flawed democracy to soft authoritarianism, but the defining feature is the refusal to commit fully to any single ideological bloc. The economic model is mixed developmentalism/mercantilism. These nations accept aid, trade, and investment from all spheres but engage in economic nationalism to protect domestic industries. Their Strategic Goal is maximizing economic benefit and political leverage by maintaining maximum distance and independence from the Liberal, Developmental, and Civilizational spheres.
Predominant Philosophers: Primarily pragmatic, but historically rooted in Ancient Greek Autarkeia (self-sufficiency of Aristotle and Stoics) and the modern, flexible notion of national sovereignty (derived from thinkers like Bodin and Hobbes, but applied transactionally).
Fragmentation/Survival Sphere
This sphere is defined by the absence of a cohesive, unifying political philosophy and the resulting struggle for mere state survival and institutional legitimacy. The core philosophy is existential/post-colonial chaos. The primary philosophical struggle is over the definition of the state itself (ethnic, religious, or territorial). The political stance is defined by weak, broken, or actively contested institutional models, leading to political instability and lack of state legitimacy. The economic model is dependency/resource competition. Economies are highly dependent on commodity exports, foreign aid, or remittances, with severe internal competition for control of scarce resources or patronage networks. Their strategic goal is achieving fundamental domestic political and institutional stability; articulating a locally legitimate social contract and basis for governance.
Predominant Philosophy: The sphere is defined by the failure of mainstream philosophy, but its condition is analyzed through Post-Structuralist critiques of power and institution failure (e.g., Giorgio Agamben’s analysis of “Bare Life” and the state of exception).
Conclusion
By shifting our organizing blocks from geographical buckets to these five philosophical spheres, we gain a clearer understanding of global competition. Conflicts are not merely regional squabbles but ideological clashes: The Liberal-Universalist Sphere battles the Developmental-Authoritarian Sphere for the future model of global governance, while the Civilizational-Conservative Sphere seeks to fracture the liberal order, and the Sovereign-Autonomy Sphere plays them all for maximum gain.
This philosophical mapping provides a predictive framework for strategic planning.