New World Order

A New World Order: What might it mean for us?

A New World Order: What might it mean for us?

The term "New World Order" has long been associated with the notion of a unified global government, often perceived as either an inevitable outcome of globalization or a secretive elite agenda. However, as the world evolves, it has become increasingly clear that the New World Order may not be a monolithic entity, but rather a complex interplay of factions with differing interests and ideologies. 

As the world continues to grapple with globalization and the realignment of geopolitical power, the the current landscape suggests that the New World Order could be composed of two separate groups with distinct ideologies and leadership.

In this article, we will explore the characteristics of these two groups, the United States-led alliance and the BRICS-led alliance, and the implications for citizens within each group.

The Two Groups of the New World Order

  1. United States-led alliance: This group is characterized by a strong belief in liberal democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. It consists of Western nations and their allies, which collectively aim to maintain their influence in global affairs and uphold the values and institutions of the liberal international order. The United States plays a pivotal role in this alliance, leading through its military, economic, and diplomatic prowess.

  2. BRICS-led alliance: The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) form an emerging alliance that seeks to challenge the existing global order and create a more multipolar world. This group is characterized by a more diverse set of political and economic systems, as well as a desire to increase their influence and assert their interests on the global stage. While they may not share a unified ideology, the BRICS countries are bound by their common goal of reshaping the world order to better reflect their growing power and ambitions.   As of January 2024, five further nations (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Ethiopia, Iran and Egypt) joined BRICS, expanding their potential influence even further.

Which countries are likely to join a BRICS-led alliance in due course?  Using our best assessment of relationships, global politics, historic allegiances and values alignments, the table below gives an indication of those nations likely to join:

Country Population Area in Sq. Miles
Brazil 213,600,000 3,287,956
Russia 144,100,000 6,612,073
India 1,366,400,000 1,269,346
China 1,439,300,000 3,705,407
South Africa 59,310,000 471,445
Egypt 102,330,000 387,048
Ethiopia 127,956,000 429,000
United Arab Emirates 9,282,000 32,300
Saudi Arabia 32,175,000 830,000
Iran 85,290,000 636,400
Turkey 84,340,000 302,535
Nigeria 206,140,000 356,669
Indonesia 276,360,000 735,358
Mexico 126,010,000 758,450
Venezuela 28,440,000 353,841
Argentina 45,380,000 1,073,500
Pakistan 225,200,000 307,374
Philippines 110,950,000 115,831
Vietnam 98,170,000 127,882
Chile 19,120,000 292,260
Colombia 50,880,000 440,831
Peru 33,190,000 496,225
Kazakhstan 18,920,000 1,052,100
Angola 33,870,000 481,354
Morocco 36,910,000 172,410
Ghana 31,070,000 92,099
Kenya 53,770,000 224,081
Uzbekistan 34,230,000 172,742
Turkmenistan 6,031,000 188,456
Kyrgyzstan 6,524,000 77,202
Tajikistan 9,537,000 55,300
Bangladesh 166,300,000 56,980
Myanmar 54,410,000 261,228
Cambodia 16,720,000 69,898
Laos 7,275,000 91,429
Sri Lanka 21,440,000 25,332
Nepal 29,130,000 56,827
Sudan 43,850,000 729,933
Zimbabwe 14,860,000 150,872
Uganda 45,710,000 93,065
Tunisia 11,820,000 63,170
Jordan 10,200,000 34,495
Lebanon 6,825,000 4,036
Iraq 40,220,000 168,754
Syria 17,500,000 71,498
Belarus 9,449,000 80,153
Serbia 6,871,000 29,913
Armenia 2,963,000 11,484
Azerbaijan 10,140,000 33,436
Georgia 3,716,000 26,911
Ecuador 17,640,000 109,484
Bolivia 11,750,000 424,164
Paraguay 7,252,000 157,048
Uruguay 3,473,000 68,037
Nicaragua 6,623,000 50,337
Algeria 44,140,000 919,595
Libya 6,871,000 679,363
Total 5,846,903,000 30,431,290
Global Total 8,000,000,000 57,300,000
Percentage 73.1% 53.1%


What this table illustrates is that a scenario could arise whereby 73% of the global population sits within the BRICS-led alliance, and over half of the landmass and potential resources.

If you consider the long-term current demographic trends, overlaying fertility rates, the implications are even more intriguing. Many Western countries have fertility rates under 2.1, which means they are expected to have declining populations in the longer term. The current average fertility rate for the BRICS alliance countries above is just over 2.6, which means that potential BRICS nations will have an even greater proportion of the global population.  In fact our best estimates indicate that by 2100 this percentage will be between 85% - 90%.

With no single Global World Order, the expectation would be a period of instability, unrest and volatility accompanied by geopolitical tensions and increased risk of military conflict.

Implications for Citizens:

    1. Economic Impact: Trade restrictions and reduced cooperation between the two alliances may lead to decreased economic growth, higher import costs, and potential job losses, especially in industries reliant on international trade.
    2. Supply Chain Disruptions: Disruptions to global supply chains may arise as a result of the shifting alliances, leading to shortages and increased prices of certain goods and services. Citizens may face higher costs for essential items, and businesses may need to find new suppliers or adapt their operations.
    3. Travel and Migration: Travel restrictions and limitations on migration between countries in the two alliances could impact tourism, business travel, and opportunities for people seeking to live, work, or study abroad.
    4. Technological Innovation: The breakdown of relationships between the alliances might lead to reduced collaboration in scientific research and technological development. This could slow down the pace of innovation, affecting various industries and the overall quality of life.
    5. Security Concerns: Heightened tensions between the two alliances may lead to increased military spending, cyber threats, and a heightened risk of conflict. Citizens in the US-led alliance may face uncertainty and potential threats to their security.
    6. Cultural and Diplomatic Relationships: The decline in relationships between the two alliances could lead to a reduced exchange of cultural and intellectual ideas, limiting opportunities for collaboration and mutual understanding.
    7. Environmental Cooperation: A breakdown in relationships might also hamper global efforts to combat climate change and address environmental challenges, as countries may prioritize their individual interests over collaborative solutions.
    8. Challenges to personal privacy and civil liberties: In the pursuit of security and stability, citizens within this alliance may face increased surveillance and potential encroachments on their privacy and civil liberties.
    9. Shifts in global power dynamics: As the BRICS-led alliance continued to grow in influence, citizens of these countries may experience a shift in their global standing and an increased role in shaping international norms and institutions. This newfound influence could bring both opportunities and responsibilities, as well as potential tensions with the US-led alliance.


    The rise of a New World Order, characterized by two separate groups with no single hierarchy, presents a complex and evolving geopolitical landscape. As the United States-led alliance and the BRICS-led alliance continued to navigate their respective paths, citizens within each group would experience unique opportunities and challenges.

    Leave a comment

    * Required fields

    Please note: comments must be approved before they are published.