Here's a story, "In a bizarre twist of events that has left the journalism community scratching their heads, a prominent Indonesian magazine recently received a rather unusual package: a pig's head. Yes, you read that right! It seems that some individuals took "sending a message" to a whole new level, opting for a delivery service that specializes in... well, unconventional gifts. In response to this peculiar act of intimidation, the Chief of the Presidential Communications Office made headlines with his rather "tasteful" advice. Instead of condemning the act or expressing solidarity with the journalists, he suggested that they should simply cook the pig’s head! Because nothing says "we support freedom of the press" quite like a good old-fashioned barbecue, right?
Rumour has it that a new recipe book is in the works titled "Cooking with Carcasses: A Journalist's Guide to Intimidation."
Meanwhile, social media is ablaze with debates about whether this intimidation tactic is actually an innovative form of performance art. Critics argue that it’s an avant-garde commentary on the state of press freedom in Indonesia, while others simply want to know where they can get their hands on some of those pig's head tacos.
As Indonesia grapples with serious issues surrounding press freedom, it seems that some individuals prefer to serve up intimidation with a side of irony. While journalists continue to brave the storm and report on critical issues, one thing is for sure: they’ll never look at a pig’s head—or a rat—quite the same way again.
So here's to hoping that next time they receive a package, it’s filled with something a little less... intimidating—like a pizza or maybe even some flowers! After all, who doesn’t love a good slice of peace?"
Now let's move on.
Globally, the quality of democracy has declined. Reports from the Varieties of Democracy Institute indicate that for the first time in two decades, more countries have experienced closed autocracies than liberal democracies. Authoritarian processes are occurring in countries that were previously democratic, such as India, Hungary, and Turkey. Leaders in these nations often use populist rhetoric to undermine democratic values and strengthen their control over institutions. Many authoritarian leaders exploit public dissatisfaction with political elites to legitimize their actions, often involving repression of opposition and control over information.The global tendencies towards "militarization" and "autocracy" have become increasingly evident in recent years, significantly impacting the international order. There is a noticeable increase in tensions among major powers such as the United States, Russia, and China. Conflicts in Europe and the Middle East highlight the direct involvement of the U.S. and Russia, alongside the potential for open conflict in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea. In response to China's growing influence, the U.S. has formed strategic alliances like Quad and Aukus, indicating that nations are preparing to confront rising military threats. The proliferation of advanced technology can exacerbate situations, with terrorist groups also leveraging these advancements to strengthen their positions.
These two trends—militarization and autocratization—indicate that the world is currently in a phase of uncertainty and transition. With increasing rivalry among major powers and a decline in democratic values across many nations, the challenges to global stability are becoming more complex. Adjusting foreign policy and defence strategies is crucial for addressing these dynamics effectively.
The current global trend is leaning more towards militarization rather than democratization, although the situation varies by region. Many countries are boosting their military spending due to geopolitical tensions, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, tensions in the South China Sea, and security concerns in the Middle East. Major powers like the U.S., China, Russia, and India are investing heavily in advanced military technologies, including hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence in warfare, and missile defence systems. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza, along with China-Taiwan tensions, indicate a growing reliance on military force in global diplomacy.
Some countries are experiencing democratic backsliding, with increasing government control over media, suppression of political opposition, and erosion of civil liberties. Even in democratic nations, challenges such as populism, political polarization, and distrust in institutions are growing. Coups and military takeovers remain a challenge in places like Myanmar and several African nations (e.g., Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali).
In Asia, military spending and geopolitical tensions are increasing, with authoritarianism rising in some nations. In China, increasing authoritarianism under Xi Jinping and heavy military expansion, particularly in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. In India and Pakistan, military modernization continues, with border tensions remaining high. Russia, a major global military power, is actively engaged in Ukraine along with increasing authoritarian rule under Putin. In Southeast Asia, mixed trends—Myanmar is under military rule, but Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines maintain democracy despite a lot of challenges. In Japan and South Korea, strengthening military due to North Korean threats and China’s rise, but still strong democracies.
Despite challenges, grassroots movements in countries like Iran, Hong Kong, and Belarus continue to push for democratic reforms. Global organizations such as the UN and human rights groups advocate for transparency and democratic governance. Some nations are still conducting elections, even under difficult circumstances, such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Brazil.
In Africa, many nations are moving toward military rule or conflict, but democratic resistance exists. Countries like Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso have seen military takeovers, reversing democratic progress. Some leaders stay in power for decades, like in Uganda, Cameroon, and Equatorial Guinea. Ongoing wars in Sudan, Ethiopia, and the Sahel region drive militarization. Ghana, South Africa, and Kenya remain relatively stable democracies.
In North America, democracy remains dominant, but militarization is increasing in security-related policies. In the United States, democracy remains strong, but increasing political polarization and military spending (largest in the world). In Canada, strong democracy with no major military expansion. Mexico struggles with military involvement in drug wars and internal security.
In South America, democracy is holding, but authoritarian tendencies and militarized conflicts exist. In Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, democracies remain stable, though political instability exists. Venezuela and Nicaragua are becoming more authoritarian, with military-backed governments. Colombia and Peru are in ongoing armed conflicts with guerrilla groups and drug cartels keep the military active.
In Europe, more militarization is due to geopolitical tensions. While democracy is strong, military buildup is increasing due to security concerns. NATO countries increasing military spending and sending weapons due to the Russia-Ukraine War. EU and NATO are strengthening military alliances against potential Russian aggression. Hungary and Poland are showing democratic decline where authoritarian shifts, but most of Western Europe remains democratic.
The only demilitarized zone (neutral) is Antarctica. Governed by the Antarctic Treaty, which bans military activity and promotes scientific cooperation. In this continent, no permanent human population, so no democracy or military power struggles.
Australia has a strong democracy but is going to strengthen its military. Partnering with the U.S. and U.K. in the AUKUS military alliance, Australia is increasing defence spending due to China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific.
So, should we prepare our country to become a military state?
The world today is not marching toward an era dominated by pure military rule, but rather, it is engaged in a carefully calculated display of power. Countries no longer seek to expand their borders through traditional conquests, nor do they aim to install military regimes purely for the sake of control. Instead, military strength has become a tool—a lever used to secure economic advantages, project influence, and maintain internal order in an increasingly unstable world.
Meanwhile, some governments do not rely on military control over their own citizens but instead use their armies as a shield for economic security. China’s military buildup in the South China Sea is not an effort to start a war—it is an economic strategy, ensuring that vital shipping lanes, oil reserves, and trade routes remain under its influence. This is the new face of power: nations flexing their military muscles not to conquer but to protect their share of global wealth.
Even in places where military rule has taken over governance, the justification is often economic in nature. In Myanmar, the military did not seize power merely for dominance but to preserve the interests of the elite, ensuring that political instability did not threaten the wealth and industries they controlled. Political stability, or at least the appearance of it, has become a currency of its own, and when governments falter, the military steps in under the pretence of keeping order.
Beyond their borders, powerful nations use their military presence as a tool of negotiation rather than conflict. Russia’s actions in Ukraine, for example, are not just about territory—they are about securing leverage in energy markets, reshaping global alliances, and forcing the world to acknowledge its economic influence. War is no longer fought simply with bullets and bombs; it is fought with trade sanctions, military bases in strategic locations, and the ability to control resources that others depend on.
Thus, the world is not moving toward military rule but toward a show of force, where nations do not seek war but use the threat of war to shape economic and political outcomes. Military strength today is not an end in itself—it is a tool for securing power in a world where economic survival is just as fierce a battlefield as any warzone.
The world is in a constant struggle between seeking economic expansion and defending existing economic power. Every major action taken by governments—whether through diplomacy, military force, trade agreements, or technological advancements—is ultimately tied to economics. Some nations, particularly emerging powers, are aggressively seeking economic growth. They expand their influence by securing natural resources, dominating trade routes, and investing in foreign markets. China, for instance, is not just building military bases—it is also constructing highways, railroads, and ports across Africa and Asia through its Belt and Road Initiative. While this appears to be an economic project, it also establishes long-term control over key markets and supply chains.
On the other hand, established powers like the United States and Europe are focused on defending their economic supremacy. They impose trade restrictions, set up military alliances, and regulate global finance to ensure they maintain control. The U.S. is not just concerned about China’s military—it is more worried about China’s ability to dominate technology, manufacturing, and trade. That is why we see economic wars fought through sanctions, tariffs, and restrictions on technology exports rather than through direct military confrontation.
Meanwhile, resource-rich but politically unstable countries, such as those in Africa and the Middle East, find themselves caught in the middle. Their economies are often targeted by foreign powers—whether through military intervention, economic partnerships, or corporate influence. Wars in these regions are rarely just about ideology—they are about who controls oil, gas, minerals, and trade routes.
Thus, the modern world order is built on the following dynamics: rising nations are seeking economic dominance; superpowers are defending their existing economic power; smaller nations are struggling to resist being exploited. And while the military is used as a tool in this process, the real battle is being fought over who controls the global economy.
If we analyze current global trends objectively, we can see that militarization is not necessarily the goal of the emerging world order—but it is becoming a dominant tool for shaping international power dynamics. While military expansion and displays of power are certainly prominent features of international relations, they are not necessarily the end goal of global governance. Instead, militarization appears to be a tool—a means by which nations seek to secure economic dominance,
Historically, military strength has always played a role in shaping the world order, but in modern times, this role has evolved. The Cold War era saw military buildup as a way to project ideological supremacy, whereas today, militarization is often linked to economic interests, technological advancements, and geopolitical positioning. Nations invest heavily in their military capabilities, not only for direct conflict but also to secure trade routes, protect energy resources, and influence global governance structures. maintain strategic influence, and assert control over global resources.
However, militarization is not the sole defining feature of the emerging world order. Economic power, technological innovation, and information control are arguably just as influential, if not more so. Countries like China and the United States, for example, use military strength as part of a broader strategy that includes economic diplomacy, cyber capabilities, and infrastructure development projects like China’s Belt and Road Initiative. In this context, the military serves as an instrument of state power rather than the ultimate objective.
Moreover, the interconnectedness of the global economy discourages full-scale military conflicts. Instead, nations engage in strategic competition through economic leverage, sanctions, and technological supremacy. The rise of artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, and space militarization further suggests that future conflicts may not be fought with conventional armies alone but through control over digital infrastructure, supply chains, and critical resources like rare earth minerals.
Thus, while militarization remains an important aspect of global power dynamics, it is not necessarily the primary goal of the world’s new order. Instead, the focus appears to be on maintaining control—over economies, technology, and governance structures—where military strength is just one of many tools used to shape the future. The real question is whether this balance will lead to a more stable global order or one marked by increased tensions and conflicts driven by the pursuit of power.
The struggle between seeking economic power and defending it is shaping the world in ways that go beyond traditional warfare. The battlefield has shifted from trenches and frontlines to boardrooms, financial markets, trade routes, and cyberspace. Nations no longer need to invade to control—they manipulate economies, disrupt supply chains, and weaponize trade to achieve their goals.
For countries aiming to rise in global influence, the strategy is one of expansion, investment, and resource control. The most aggressive player in this game today is China. It does not seek to dominate through war but through economic colonization, building infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Latin America under the Belt and Road Initiative. This allows China to control key trade routes, gain influence over emerging markets, and secure long-term access to raw materials.
Other emerging economies, like India and Brazil, are also playing the long game. Their military presence is not as dominant, but they use technology, trade agreements, and regional influence to carve out their share of the global market. The goal is clear: economic power equals political power, and those who control global supply chains will dictate the future.
Even Russia, despite its reliance on military force in Ukraine, is deeply focused on economic leverage. Its dominance in energy exports gives it a powerful tool—when Europe imposed sanctions, Russia retaliated by cutting off gas supplies, sending shockwaves through global energy markets. This was not just military aggression; it was economic warfare designed to force the world to acknowledge Russia’s relevance.
While rising nations push forward, established powers like the United States and the European Union are on the defensive. Their economic control has been the foundation of the modern world order, and any challenge to it is met with fierce resistance.
The U.S. remains the world's dominant economy, but it now fights its battles through sanctions, technology restrictions, and financial systems rather than open war. It has blocked China from accessing advanced semiconductor technology, crippled Russia’s economy with financial restrictions, and uses the dominance of the U.S. dollar as a tool to maintain control. This is why countries like China and Russia are now pushing to create alternative trade systems that bypass the dollar—because whoever controls global finance holds the real power.
Europe, on the other hand, is trying to defend its economy from both external and internal threats. The European Union’s reliance on Russian energy showed its vulnerability, forcing it to shift policies rapidly. Meanwhile, it struggles with internal fractures, as economic disparities between richer and poorer EU nations create tensions.
As nations continue this battle between economic expansion and economic defence, the world is shifting toward a multipolar order, where no single country will dominate as the U.S. did after the Cold War. Instead, power will be shared among multiple centres—China, the U.S., the EU, Russia, and rising regional powers like India and Brazil.
However, this competition will not be fought with military force alone. The most powerful nations will be those that control advanced technology (AI, semiconductors, and cybersecurity); dominate financial systems (currency influence and trade networks); secure energy and food supplies for the future.
Militarization will remain a tool, but the real war is about who controls the global economy. Nations will continue to build armies, not necessarily to fight wars, but to ensure they can protect their economic interests in an era where power is shifting faster than ever before.
We are continuing with our discussion, but I would like to remind myself, and as input for you, that the battle for economic control is no longer limited to one industry—technology, finance, and energy are merging into a single global struggle. Whoever dominates AI will control automation, cybersecurity, and military tech. Whoever controls finance will dictate global trade and economic stability. Whoever leads in energy production will determine which nations thrive and which fall behind.
While the military remains a crucial tool, the real wars of the 21st century will be won in labs, financial markets, and power plants rather than on traditional battlefields. Countries are no longer simply building armies—they are building economic and technological empires, and without reducing respect, using military strength as a show of force to protect these assets.
