The War of the Century and the Antichrist of Hybrid Warfare

Looking around, we are left perplexed. The phrase “the world is changing” is too timid a declaration for the reversals of values and concepts, and for the institutional disintegration we are witnessing. We see political leaders discussing territorial annexations without restraint, the entitlement to dispose of others’ resources, and the replacement of the force of law with the law of force. Business leaders speak of Armageddon and point fingers at the Antichrist, who is either already among us or soon to arrive. Everything seems like chaos, at times even a delirium, fueled by unclear interests, personal ambitions, and the egos of successful politicians or businessmen.

But what if all of this actually makes sense as early symptoms of megatrends? What if we are being provoked to endlessly debate false themes while the real reasons for these scandalous decisions and comments are entirely different?

Let’s use life on a cruise ship as an example. It is a pleasure trip toward a clear destination with a fixed itinerary and a perfectly predictable schedule where everything is planned in detail. Onboard, there is a code of conduct respected by everyone to ensure respect for all segments of travelers: seniors, children, women, men, and those with varying degrees of wealth or physical strength. Despite this diversity, everyone feels perfect and enjoys the journey because there are rules respected by all.

However, things change dramatically in the event of a danger of sinking. Initially, people try to maintain the rules according to emergency drills. But once time runs out, rules cease to matter, and everyone begins to fight for their own survival. The strongest push to the front; the weak and helpless are left behind. Initial harmony is replaced by a struggle for survival where only the powerful prevail or impose their will.

The planet is our cruise ship. But humanity’s resources are under increasing pressure as demand exceeds supply. By “resources,” I mean them in a broad sense: not just minerals, but also habitable land, water, high technology, and financial capital. Not only is supply inferior to demand, but these resources are not distributed uniformly. Some countries accumulate capital or technology, while others are rich in minerals, and each has its suitors. Simultaneously, climate change will alter human-friendly geographical areas, forcing large populations to migrate to survive, where they will compete for resources with existing populations.

As years pass, this gap between supply and demand will only grow. The Earth’s population will increase, and economic growth—accelerated by technological revolutions—will require even greater consumption of all resource types: minerals, energy, capital. The perspective is that the rules of the “cruise ship” risk being abolished to make way for the law imposed by the strongest. This is the lens through which we should perhaps read current developments.

In this context, signs of a return to spheres of influence and neo-imperialist temptations only lead to a polarization around great powers eager to surround themselves with vassal states rich in complementary resources.

Great powers are engaged in intense competition to accumulate capital and technology to consolidate long-term power and prevent new aspirants from emerging. The combination of technological and financial power, along with population size, transforms them into great military powers—an essential tool for projecting influence in target zones: the USA in the Western Hemisphere, China in Asia and Africa, and Russia in Europe.

This same race extends into outer space, with intensifying programs to conquer the Moon or Mars. The goals are clear and exceed the prestige or scientific objectives of the 1960s Apollo missions. Now, the discussion is about permanent lunar bases powered by nuclear plants for the purpose of mining minerals. Notably, the great powers want to go it alone; they do not want to share benefits with other nations in international projects. Consequently, states like India, Japan, and European nations are launching their own independent projects.

In this fight for dominance, the speed of technological and economic advancement is essential, leading us to the much debated theory of accelerationism. Many who listen to its proponents are left dismayed. We are proposed a world where technology is left to develop freely to ensure an unprecedented civilizational leap.

In reality, accelerationism has two rationales. The first is the detachment of great powers from the rest of the world through an AI development race. Such a race, as already noticed, require highly advanced technologies, huge investments and a massive energy production increase in order to power data centers.

The second rationale could be the detachment of a small core of people who will try to control the masses, isolating themselves in state-nuclei linked by digital networks.

Since this cannot be said openly, false narratives are needed to gain popular support. This involves invoking apocalyptic scenarios or biblical figures like Armageddon or the Antichrist to intimidate the faithful. The arguments are weak and border on the absurd.

“Armageddon”, the conflict which would bring the end of the world, is equated with any attempt to manage the risks of AI, climate change, nuclear threats or the legislation aimed at protecting democracies. In an inverse logic, the end of the world is supposedly brought about by keeping risks under control, rather than by unlimited technological development and disregard of ethics.

The apparent superficiality and lack of credible argumentation for such approaches is all the more surprising given that they come from highly successful entrepreneurs. These are individuals who could not have reached such levels of success without lucidity and rigorous planning of their activities.

Or perhaps, the plan exists, but it is not public?

Entrepreneur Peter Thiel is a prominent promoter of these ideas.  He is well known for his successful investments in companies such as Pay Pal, Facebook, Palantir, and through Founders Fund, a venture capital fund, in many other high-tech companies. His right-wing political opinions are well known, and his significant funding follows the same political direction.

In his view, the “Antichrist” is a “luddite” entity that opposes explosive and unlimited technological progress—a category in which he includes the UN, the International Court of Justice, or environmental activists.

Please note that in the accelerationist’ lectures about the future o humanity, the human resource is absent. Everything is subsumed by technology. In Thiel’s interview with Ross Douthat hosted in a New York Times podcast, the question “ Will the human race endure?” is followed by Thiel’s long and bizarre hesitation before attempting to answer.

This should not come as a surprise as accelerationism does not lead to the total disappearance of the world, but to the disappearance of the world as we know it. We are moving toward a world where the “war of the century” between labor and capital will be irrevocably won by capital in all forms (financial, technological, human intelligence and, finally, artificial intelligence), all, by the way, held by an extremely narrow and increasingly powerful global elite.

Democracy, the only instrument through which the majority could have a say in the face of techno-financial elites is under a concerted attack. In a “soft” version by manipulating masses via sophisticated algorithms on social networks and AI in order to direct their opinions and vote in the needed direction. In a “hard” version by abolishing democracy entirely. Thiel stated in 2009 that he no longer believed freedom and democracy are compatible.

Such ideas are provided by an ideological movement, known as NRx or the Dark Enlightenment” which views democracy as a hindrance to capitalism. Rather in the way of capital I would nuance…

A third way to “avoid” democracy is creating new state entities with their own rules, unconstrained by democratic principles or by the management of high-tech related risks. A hot topic is Greenland and the US administration’s ambition to own it. While the official reason is geostrategy, the famous strategist and analyst George Friedman noted that, since the US already has the control it needs there, he cannot explain the “imperative” reason to own it at any cost, including that of alienating the European allies.

To complete the picture, an article from the beginning of 2025 published in Foreign Affairs by Michael Albertus, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, drew attention to the fact that Greenland will undergo major changes in the coming decades as a result of climate change. It will become an area much more friendly to resource exploitation and capable of sheltering climate refugees from other latitudes. Or, I would add, why not, techno-lords eager to create their own state with their own rules, sheltered from the ‘excesses’ of democracy.

Which is the solution?

The solution is a complex process with no guaranteed happy ending. In the new world of the powerful, which, as the Canadian Prime Minister pointed out, represents a break from a past dominated by rules to which there is little chance we will return, only economic, technological, financial, and military power will matter. This will require middle powers to create poles together that can compete with great powers.

The solution is obvious, but its implementation is not at all easy, because it requires two essential ingredients, which have been rare so far: integration and coordination on all levels—economic, political, and military. It is essential to carry out this process across all three dimensions, without exception, so that alternative centers of power can be created. Many middle powers are now rushing to establish economic alliances and free trade zones. But EU experience shows that without a credible military muscle and efficient decision-making, economic alliances lack the persuasion needed in the future global geopolitical context.

Therefore, it is urgently necessary to create a “hard European core” , which would include countries with the desire for close political, commercial, financial, and military integration. In times of profound structural change in international relations, the EU seems to move far too slowly in the decisions it makes, despite the significant resources at its disposal, being marked by fragmented and divergent interests. The handling of the Mercosur trade agreement with Latin America is a clear example of the bottlenecks brought about by EU fragmentation. As for Romania, the best defense is joining a European power center by rapidly reaching “middle power” status. International relationships based on shared values are the most predictable and solid. We have the resources—financial, economic, and human—to become an actor of Poland’s caliber in the EU. We must use them with professionalism, wisdom and speed, abandoning internal “tribal” fights. In a world transforming shockingly fast, only those who adapt quickly will survive.