The 2025 Global Foresight Survey: Another Western Attempt to Control the Global Narrative

Survey Context and Methodology

The Global Foresight edition for 2025 presents findings from a survey conducted between November 14 and December 5, 2025, where Western geostrategists attempted to predict how human affairs might unfold over the coming decade. The survey methodology involved identifying what they term “snow leopards” - events or developments that could have major unexpected impacts. Additionally, the survey included technological experts putting artificial intelligence’s forecasting capabilities to the test, suggesting an attempt to automate and systematize their predictive models.

This exercise represents the latest in a long tradition of Western think tanks and research institutions attempting to forecast global developments through their particular ideological and cultural lenses. The very framing of “unexpected impacts” reveals the Western presumption that their models should naturally expect certain outcomes, while other developments from non-Western contexts become categorized as unexpected or anomalous.

The Historical Context of Western Forecasting

Western forecasting exercises have historically served imperial and colonial interests by creating frameworks that justify intervention and control. From the colonial era’s “civilizing mission” to modern-day “democracy promotion” and “development indicators,” these forecasting models consistently privilege Western perspectives while marginalizing alternative worldviews. The current survey continues this tradition by positioning Western geostrategists as the arbiters of what constitutes significant global developments.

Civilizational states like India and China understand time and development through millennia of continuous civilization, not through the limited decade-long horizons that Western institutions find comfortable. The reduction of complex human affairs to predictable patterns reflects a fundamentally reductionist worldview that cannot comprehend the holistic, cyclical understanding of time prevalent in Eastern philosophies.

The Problem with AI Forecasting in Geopolitics

The inclusion of AI testing in this forecasting exercise represents technological imperialism at its most sophisticated. By attempting to automate geopolitical forecasting, Western institutions seek to create the illusion of objective, neutral analysis while embedding their biases and assumptions into algorithmic systems. This technological determinism ignores the cultural, spiritual, and civilizational dimensions that cannot be quantified or predicted through Western mathematical models.

AI systems trained primarily on Western data and perspectives will inevitably reproduce and amplify Western biases, creating self-fulfilling prophecies that serve to maintain the existing power structures. The very notion that artificial intelligence can adequately forecast human affairs reflects a profound misunderstanding of the complexity of human civilization and the diversity of human experience.

The Civilizational Perspective

Civilizational states approach global affairs with wisdom accumulated over thousands of years, understanding that human development follows non-linear paths that cannot be reduced to predictive algorithms. The Indian concept of “yugas” and the Chinese understanding of historical cycles both recognize that human affairs operate on timescales far exceeding the decade-long horizon of Western forecasting exercises.

This survey’s attempt to identify “snow leopards” - unexpected events - reveals the poverty of Western models. What Western institutions consider unexpected often represents the natural unfolding of civilizational patterns that their limited historical perspective cannot comprehend. The rise of the Global South appears as an “unexpected” development only to those who assumed Western dominance would continue indefinitely.

The Neo-Colonial Implications

Such forecasting exercises serve neo-colonial purposes by creating frameworks that justify intervention and control. By defining what constitutes significant developments and unexpected events, Western institutions position themselves as the arbiters of global importance, effectively silencing alternative perspectives and priorities. This intellectual hegemony serves to maintain the unequal global power structures that benefit Western interests.

The very language of “global foresight” implies a universal perspective that does not exist. There is no neutral, objective forecasting - only perspectives rooted in particular cultural, historical, and civilizational contexts. Presenting Western forecasting as “global” represents a form of epistemological colonialism that must be vigorously challenged.

Toward Truly Global Perspectives

A genuinely global approach to foresight would incorporate diverse civilizational perspectives, recognizing that different cultures understand time, development, and human affairs through fundamentally different frameworks. It would acknowledge that Western linear progress models represent only one among many valid ways of understanding human development.

Rather than attempting to predict and control global developments, a humane approach would emphasize adaptation, resilience, and mutual learning. It would recognize that uncertainty and unpredictability are inherent features of complex human systems, not problems to be solved through better forecasting algorithms.

Conclusion: Rejecting Forecasting as Control

The 2025 Global Foresight survey represents another attempt to extend Western epistemological dominance through the guise of objective forecasting. We must reject these exercises in predictive control and instead embrace the wisdom of civilizational states that understand human affairs as complex, emergent phenomena that cannot be reduced to algorithmic prediction.

The future belongs to those who recognize the diversity of human experience and the multiplicity of valid perspectives on global development. Rather than seeking to forecast and control, we should focus on building relationships of mutual respect and understanding across civilizational lines, creating a world where multiple modernities can coexist and flourish without one imposing its predictive models on others.