Today, the question is being asked with increasing urgency: Is the world on the brink of World War III, or has it already begun? Figures like Ukraine’s GUR Chief Kyrylo Budanov and several Western analysts suggest that a large-scale global conflict was ignited by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Others view current events as a series of regional wars. To understand the true nature of these developments, we must look beyond the mere recitation of facts and apply a systems approach.
Bogdanov’s Tectology: Equilibrium vs. Absorption
To analyze macro-regions (USA, China, Russia, India) as systems, it is worth revisiting the ideas of Alexander Bogdanov—a preeminent thinker of the early 20th century and the founder of Tectology (the science of universal organization). Bogdanov anticipated cybernetics and systems theory by decades, yet his ideas were suppressed by Leninist dogma, which stunted the development of Soviet cybernetics and genetics for a generation.
According to Bogdanov, systems exist in two primary states:
- Equilibrium: Where systems coexist without one consuming the other.
- Disturbed Equilibrium: Where a stronger system begins to absorb the resources (matter, energy, information) of a weaker one.
The Western civilization, led by the U.S., currently acts as an aggressive system of absorption. Donald Trump, despite his isolationist rhetoric, will not cease the expansion of American interests until he hits a wall of rigid resistance or until the costs of absorption outweigh the benefits. Western democracy is built on this very balance of power: the struggle for rights continues until both sides acknowledge a parity of forces and codify it into law.
The Russian Problem: Clan Interests vs. Statehood
Unlike the U.S., where policy—despite internal friction—tends to be corporate and unified, the Russian system is critically weakened by clannishness. In Russia, even under wartime conditions, state interests are frequently sacrificed for the benefit of specific influential groups.
The U.S. plays this masterfully: they negotiate with one clan while simultaneously dismantling the potential of another. We see Russian assets being liquidated in Europe, while internal power groups at home stand by as industries belonging to their rivals collapse. This fragmentation is the primary reason why American MNCs (multinational corporations) historically preferred to work with a monolithic China rather than a fractured Russia. When clan interests within the intelligence services or the Presidential Administration take precedence over state partnerships, the system becomes easy prey for external absorption.
The Middle East and the 2026 Oil Trap
The current conflict surrounding Iran is a battle for the resources required for the next technological leap (AI and new industrialization). Trump requires cheap energy, which now remains almost exclusively in the Middle East.
- Russia and the U.S. are high-cost production regions. They benefit from prices around $100 per barrel.
- The Middle East possesses oil at $20, and the only question is who will own and control it.
By drawing Saudi Arabia into a conflict with Iran, the U.S. is creating conditions where multinational corporations can take direct control of regional resources. Meanwhile, Ukraine under Zelensky is attempting to insert itself into this game, offering services—including private military companies akin to a new «Wagner»—to side with Saudi Arabia and the UAE against Iran.
Conclusion: A Policy of Surrender or a Policy of Balance?
The primary threat today is that Trump and the U.S. are expanding at the expense of Russian interests without meeting systemic resistance. Russia «cedes ground» in hopes of future agreements, but in the logic of a system of absorption, this only provokes further pressure.
America will not stop on its own. It will only stop where it encounters a genuine balance of forces. Russia must stop playing clan-based games and align its policy with national interests, clearly defining the boundaries beyond which absorption becomes impossible.
