The architecture of the modern world is undergoing a rapid transformation. Before our eyes, the era of familiar globalism is drawing to a close, giving way to a model of macro-regions—independent, self-sufficient, and equal centкes of culture, intelligence and power.
The United States, under the leadership of Donald Trump, clearly understands itself as the leader of its own macro-region (the MAGA concept).
China, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, traditionally views itself as the historic Middle Kingdom—a distinct civilization building an independent technological and financial ecosystem. India behaves in a similar fashion. These are subjective, independent civilizations, the «continents» that may compete or cooperate, but always speak to one another as equals.
Against this backdrop, Europe and Russia are exhibiting a deep systemic crisis. The roots of today’s conflict—ranging from military actions in Ukraine to sanction wars and the degradation of ties between Europe (most prominently exemplified by Germany) and Russia—lie in a single shared problem: the loss of leadership thinking and a voluntary abandonment of macro-regional status.
1. The «Junior Partner» Trap: The Syndrome Affecting Europe and Russia
The primary defect of contemporary European and Russian policy is a «marching in rank» mindset—the desire to merely be a follower in someone else’s project.
The European Choice: Comfortable Dependence
Leaders of the modern European Union have become accustomed to thinking as junior partners of the United States. Europe has surrendered its geopolitical agency by integrating itself into the American hierarchy. Attempts to abruptly sever economic ties with Russia—in particular, the destruction of the German-Russian energy and industrial alliance—have resulted in a self-inflicted blow to the European economy. At the same time, the EU catastrophically lacks strategic leaders capable of declaring: «Europe is a sovereign macro-region equal to the US and China, and we will develop according to our own interests.»
The Russian Impasse: The Dream of Fitting in
Historically, Russia developed as an independent geopolitical and civilizational centre. Neither Ivan the Terrible, nor Alexander I, nor Joseph Stalin ever conceived of themselves as components of external structures. When Stalin refused Mao Zedong’s 1949 proposal to incorporate China into the USSR as a 16th republic, he acted out of an understanding of the distinctness of two great civilizations and the necessity of preserving a sovereign path.
Today, however, the Russian elite and big business demonstrate a «non-leader» mentality. Instead of constructing their own sovereign future, they appeal to the West or the East, pleading: «Accept us, we are useful to you, we can supply resources—and if you oppose us, we can destroy you.»
As a result, Russia risks transforming from an independent player into a raw-material and resource appendage for China—fuelling Beijing’s growth at the Russian domestic prices while losing its own technological and social capital.
2. How Real Sovereignty Is Built: Lessons from China
While Europe and Russia manage tactical issues and endure the inefficiency of their own bureaucratic systems, China operates at the macro level:
- Investment in Intellect and Human Capital: Hundreds of thousands of students study at leading global universities, while top minds are recruited to national research laboratories.
- Technological Sovereignty: Technologies are gathered from around the world to build an independent space and digital infrastructure.
- Alliances of the Future: Beijing establishes international coalitions in artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies, seizing control over tomorrow’s global currency and information assets.
The Main Lesson: Leadership is not simply a matter of possessing missiles or engaging in loud rhetoric. It is the capacity to build an independent economy, attract talent, develop social capital, and set the global agenda. Above all, it is an attitude—the ability to dream and independently drive toward the future.
3. Breaking the Impasse: The Idea of a Greater Eurasian Macro-Region
The continuation of the current conflict in Ukraine is a path toward self-destruction for Europe and exhaustion for Russia, yielding benefits only to outside players. The sole alternative to the gradual absorption of the region by other centres of power is a return to the concept of a unified Greater Eurasian Macro-Region.
Such a union must be built not on subjugation, but on the aggregation of strengths:
- Europe’s industrial and technological capital;
- Russia’s resource, spatial, technological, social, and scientific potential;
- The transit, natural, and intellectual potential of Eastern European and Central Asian nations.
The Role of Ukraine: From Arena of Confrontation to Initiator of Transformation
Due to historical and geographical factors, Ukraine cannot function as an isolated macro-region. However, history demonstrates that Kyiv, Little Russia, or modern Ukraine, has repeatedly served as the catalyst and initiator of sweeping historical shifts.
Rather than remaining a battlefield in someone else’s geopolitical game, Ukraine can find the strength to become the initiator and pivotal bridge in shaping a new pan-Eurasian architecture for security and economic cooperation.
Conclusion
The world will inevitably be partitioned into macro-regions. If Europe, Russia, and their neighbours fail to recognize the necessity of uniting into an independent subject of global politics, they will be weaponized in the disputes of other global leaders and integrated individually into US and Chinese projects as support staff.
The time for tactical maneuvering has run out. Forces aware of this threat are forming in both Russia and Europe today. Transitioning from a war of attrition to the creation of a new, independent Eurasian centre of power is the only way to preserve the historical prospects and sovereignty of every participant in this space.
