Interview: How will the war in Ukraine change the world?
INTERVIEW WITH DR. TUOMO KUOSA, A LEADING FUTURIST
FUTURE PROOF – BLOG BY FUTURES PLATFORM
Already within a few weeks from Russia beginning military operations on Ukrainian soil in February 2022, the global economy and the lives of billions of people have been affected in many hard-hitting ways. Energy prices soared, global food production was shaken, many supply chains were disconnected, and transportation routes altered – not to mention the human suffering in both Ukraine and also among those seeking a new place to locate their families. Positive signals could be detected as well, including the ultra-fast hegemony and integration among western countries, especially within the European Union.
To help people, organisations and even nations to restore peace and heal from the immediate impacts of the crisis, our team of futurists set to look at the long-term global impacts of the war. The results of the analysis were published as a publicly available, free-of-charge foresight radar. The radar presents a number of what futurists call “future phenomena”, i.e. descriptions of things that are likely to happen in the future. A phenomenon may be a strengthening trend, but also a disruption, or series of events leading to a particular outcome.
The team of futurists at Futures Platform is led by Dr Tuomo Kuosa, a renowned futurist and foresight expert, who is also an associate professor at a Finnish university. He is an active keynote speaker and has authored several books on strategic foresight and futures studies in general.
In this blog post, we interview Dr Kuosa regarding their process of analysing the global impacts of the war in Ukraine, thus shedding light on how such foresight analysis actually comes about.
Dr Tuomo Kuosa, from your team’s analysis of the global impacts of the war, which do you believe are the three phenomena that will have the most profound impact globally? Why?
Well, indeed the war in Ukraine has changed many things. Suddenly, large-scale war in Europe has become a reality. Who would have thought that some months ago?
The first and most important phenomenon to lift up from the radar is naturally War in Europe. This phenomenon we published already in 2019. Russia’s aggression continues in Ukraine and Kyiv is fighting for its existence as a sovereign political entity. Ukrainian people are displaying bravery and skill in war. The West has united in its determination to provide Ukraine with military help. This shows that in times of crisis, the Western community can and will come together to oppose a common threat. The US, combined with Europe and Canada, is still the strongest force in the world that probably cannot be defeated by anyone, despite the talks about how the time of the West as a global force is coming to an end. I think particularly Beijing has taken note of this.
The second phenomenon I would like to highlight is Economic Sanctions as Weapons. As we have seen, Russia has faced unprecedented economic repercussions because of its actions. It is a large economy connected to the rest of the world, but it was in many ways cut off without hesitation. This sends a strong signal to other authoritarian regimes pondering using military force against their smaller neighbours.
The third phenomenon is the National Security of Supply. The war has disrupted and will continue to disrupt many global supply chains that were already troubled by the pandemic. Especially food production will suffer. This reinforces the idea that at least some basic necessities should not come from too far abroad. It would be quite logical for many countries to strive for at least some level of self-sufficiency in foodstuffs. Perhaps on the EU level, the union could do a bit more to increase the regional independence in some strategic industries. All of this, of course, also applies to energy in particular. Nuclear and renewable energy may see growing interest – anything to get rid of the Russian hydrocarbons.
There are many other important phenomena – Migrant Crisis, Changing European Energy Market and so forth – that would deserve more attention, but these three, I feel, are now the most urgent ones that need to be considered.
In your opinion, which will have a more profound long-term impact on our lives, the Ukraine war or the Covid-19 pandemic? Why?
The war in Ukraine. Covid-19 has shown us that diseases will continue to exist also in the future. When pandemics happen, we know that we can act and, in time, defeat the virus, or at least learn to live with it.
However, the Ukraine war may have massive political consequences. First of all, it will weaken Russia and show that it isn’t necessarily as powerful as it claims. In the most extreme scenario, Russia will experience a full-scale collapse, even undergoing a disintegration. This would remove the most pressing European security issue for many years, even decades, to come.
Second, as I mentioned before, the war has shown that the global West can come together and oppose an adversary that presents a real threat to our way of life. The West is not weak, it is strong, and this conflict has made us remember that.
Third, the war may force Europe to become a much stronger military force. This would be a staggering shift, especially if Germany becomes a new military powerhouse. Europe’s role as a hub of both economic and military power would be felt all across the world, and in Africa, the Middle East and Russia in particular.
You wrote the phenomenon about the Ukraine war already in 2019, and the possibility of a global pandemic in 2012. What is, in general terms, the method you use to identify and analyse such future phenomena? How can one predict the future?
Well, both of these things, the war in Ukraine and the pandemic, were already in some discussions back then. However, they weren’t taken very seriously. Yes, the pandemic was considered a possibility, but since it hadn’t happened yet, most people didn’t see it as a very plausible risk. If we haven’t experienced something during our lifetime, we may underestimate its potential to happen or affect us. Foresight tries to remind us that there are things that, even though we don’t think so, can impact us in the future in very radical ways. The pandemic is a prime example of this.
The war in Ukraine was a bit of a different story. Most people, especially in Europe and the US, but elsewhere too, were thinking that Moscow would never risk a full-scale war in Ukraine. It would just be too costly. Actually, I think we had a pretty good grasp on the sanctions and so on already before the invasion. We just thought that facing such horrible consequences would make the war seem like a foolish undertaking. So, most people could quite conveniently and comfortably shut the possibility of war out of their minds – it wouldn’t make any sense to have such a war from anyone’s perspective, right! However, when considering the future possibilities, in the case of the situation in Ukraine, war was a very real option. Even though we didn’t consider it likely in the end, we saw it as a wild card; it could happen. It needed to be taken into account, as we need to think about all those future developments that, in principle, could take place.
We identified both of these issues years back by systematically thinking about the future in both contexts; global health and European security. We considered the options, and although we didn’t feel that either of them was very likely, we still thought that they could happen and that we needed to inform our customers about these possibilities. We didn’t try to rationalise either one of them away because they were uncomfortable or scary to us. We just wanted to present the fullest possible picture of future alternatives we could identify.
In many ways, examining the future requires an understanding of the present and a systematic mapping of the alternative paths the present may take into the future. The most important thing is not to rule out those options we ourselves consider unlikely or unfavourable – otherwise, we are not trying to see how the future could be; we are just engaged in wishful thinking and daydreaming.
Are foresight and future analysis the same as forecasting or making predictions?
No, it is not. I get this question a lot. Forecasting is either extrapolating the present trends into the future or otherwise trying to make precise statements about the future, usually related to a specific context. Forecasting is important, and it has its uses.
Foresight, on the other hand, is about studying how the future could unfold in a systematic and holistic way. Let’s say we are thinking about the future of some industry. We cannot just think about the main changes going on in that industry itself or in the economy. We know that those two are influenced by many other things, most of which have nothing directly to do either with the industry or the economy. The war in Ukraine is a very good example of this.
Foresight identifies the key driving forces, whether economic, technological, political, and so on, that could influence the future of an organisation, company, country, or city, and then systematically maps out how those forces could interact in the future. It is about understanding all of the ways things could play out, how you should prepare and how you could perhaps influence those future outcomes. The aim is to present a broad perspective on the future, to show that things could be quite different tomorrow from what they are today. And all this is done in a structured, transparent, and traceable way to show how the thinking has developed.
How can you maintain a balanced view/analysis amidst the situation, as we know the information war is likely to be strong on both sides?
This is a tough question, but a very important one. Following multiple sources that usually provide good coverage is essential. Verifying information that is of particular interest to you is another crucial matter. However, we always need to keep two things in mind.
One is that by analysing the information ourselves, breaking it down and asking the right questions, we can build a decent picture concerning what is happening. This takes time and effort. At Futures Platform, our analysis always aims to understand what is at the core of the changes – this helps us make as objective as possible assessments about the future.
The second thing to always keep in mind is that even if you try to find the best information, you can still be wrong. You need to consider the alternatives. What if what I’m thinking now is wrong? As I noted above, foresight aims to present all possible development paths. If you are fully committed to one path, and you think that it is what will happen, and then you are wrong, what will you do then?
Maintaining a balanced view takes deliberation, systematic analysis using, for example, foresight methodologies, and keeping yourself from intuitively “falling in love” with some specific point of view or narrative. Keep an open mind and try to see if the hypothesis you would like to be true could actually be false.
You speak a lot about the world being VUCA, i.e. Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous. Is this VUCA effect intensifying all the time, or does it just feel so at any given time, as we start picturing the past as more stable?
What an excellent question! When we look back, we tend to think: “this is how it was supposed to go.” We know how things turned out. Of course, for example, the Soviet Union had to fall. Of course, there had to be a financial crisis in 2008. How could it have been otherwise! This, naturally, is a fallacy. We look back and feel that the paths things took were somehow predetermined or stable. They weren’t. Things could have happened in other ways as well. This gives you an illusion of stability. It is an interesting feature of human thinking; even if we consider times that were characterised by turmoil and troubles, we can still, from our present view, think that, okay, things were bad, but then they got better. We cannot put ourselves in the position of those living through that time, thinking if the horrors they experience will ever end.
So, circling back to VUCA. The world, in a certain sense, is getting more VUCA. This is because of the various technologies that allow us to communicate and move at greater speeds. We can create change faster than before. And there are more of us than ever before, so that also needs to be factored in. So, to answer your question, the world is more VUCA than before, but only in proportion to the technology and population we have now compared to the past. The past was as VUCA as it could have been. If the current technological progress continues, we cannot expect the world to get less complex or ambiguous – it’s just not honest to think that way.
Finally, what’s your guidance to public and private organisations, and even nations, to prepare for the post-war and post-Covid era?
There are some lessons that I would draw from these two events. First, you need to plan ahead and take into account also the things that you consider unlikely. You need to be able to discuss things that you find uncomfortable but which are within the boundaries of possible. Use foresight techniques to make your future analyses comprehensive, systematic and structured. Take time to find out what could affect you, your organisation, or your country in the future. Be intellectually honest and diligent.
The second thing to remember is that, in many ways, the world has not changed that much in the sense that we still live in a world that needs to struggle with negative things, like diseases and conflicts. However, that doesn’t mean we cannot take steps to learn from the past and apply that learning to imagine and plan better futures. If you can imagine and plausibly describe a good future, you can also take steps towards realising it. Foresight helps you with that.
Third, and a bit more concretely, I would say that we could be heading towards a time where many things need to be sourced locally, or at least less globally, than before. Very complex and long supply chains are a burden. We need to use robotics and automation to repatriate at least the most critical supply chains. This is just common sense.
The fourth point I would make, and I don’t want to sound too negative, is that hard power still very much has its place in the world. Luckily, in the West at least, we have started to understand that it is something we need to mainly use to preserve what we value, not to oppress others. It is my hope that this view will be shared by many nations in the future.
My fifth and last point is that we will emerge from these crises stronger than before. I remain hopeful that we can put these troubling times behind us in the coming years and build a more positive, prosperous, and meaningful future. At Futures Platform, we help people think about their future in a way that provides them with actionable futures intelligence they can use to succeed in the coming years and decades.
View the open-access foresight radar “Global Impacts of the War in Ukraine” and start assessing how your organisation should prepare for a future shaped by the first major war in Europe in decades.
In our article series, we zoom in on some specific areas and industries in the world that will emerge after the COVID-19 pandemic. This third instalment is based on an analysis by Futures Platform, with insight from the founder and chairman of energy company St1 and climate change advocate Mika Anttonen and Futures Platform’s Senior Foresight Analyst Max Stucki.