Tongue in cheek i hope??

Here's my guesses:

 

China: Continued unsustainable economic growth for perhaps a decade or more and then at some point there will be a form of schism or economic collapse, the numbers don't add up and anyone with a brain can see this coming - protests go unreported but when you consider there's tens of thousands a year in an era of 12% growth you can see what will happen if this evaporates - the west has had its commodity spike/collapse, when the same happens to China we'll see the truth of just how much "real" growth there is. The problem people seem to have is in viewing trends as permanent, it's why few saw the "credit crunch" coming, China has indeed played the game, and they will continue to do so, but not forever.

Anglosphere/EU (western nations would be a better term) The future of these nations is actually relatively bright, diverse economies that have "fingers" in pies all over the world, you could view these nations as the epicentre of global trade, cultural development and technology, it may shift eastwards in time but innovation and technology is the greatest driving force of economic, social and technological development, and will continue to be so for the forseeable future, free society delivers. As has been said, the raw "share" of wealth/power will decline in absolute terms as third world nations start to "develop" into free market economies. Overall, I think pessimism based on growth trends is unwarranted, and in real terms, the west/anglosphere still punches above its weight.

 

Russia: Moving slowly westwards politically, Medvedev/Putin balance very interesting, long term they need better relations with their chosen partners, hatred of the west is decreasing and resentment of the rising nations to the East is increasing, I would suggest that Russia has a lot more reason to turn westwards (as it is with Medvedev) than east, they see the realities of technology trade with China, they need new markets if they're going to develop out of a primary industry economy (oil/minerals) trust takes a long time to develop - if Putin really does become acting President in 2012 then it will be interesting to see - despite what people say about this man, he put someone who was essentially the most moderate/west leaning voice in the Duma in charge of the country, he sees where Russia needs to head, albeit reluctantly.

 

Mid East - Impossible to predict due to social and political volatility. Iran is the nation of greatest concern, if they weaponise a nuke then count on several neighbours doing the same, on the other hand if Israel hits them with airstrikes (possible tacnukes) we could see a major conflict unfold, it fortunately appears that other neighbours will tacitly support this action given the risks that Iran poses to the region. Turkey is also unstable politically - could go more theocratic or remain largely secular (potentially joining the EU) from this point depending on the potential non democratic yet timely intervention of the army in the case of the former. The west's role in the middle east is to maintain a stable flow of oil, that means we sell arms to nations we don't particularly like (Saudi Arabia for example) in order to keep the balance in our favour, this has a tendency to backfire and will probably do so again. I see the Middle East as about as influential as it ever will be, Oil markets won't rule forever. We're no longer the only players in the region, as the situation with Iran is currently demonstrating.

 

Japan/ROK/ROC 

 

These nations are already highly advanced socially, with greater social freedoms and phenomenally efficient manufacturing processes, Japan&ROK are already showing signs of hasting the end of their long standing animosity. With regards to China, there is both opportunity for investment and trade and the possibility of a future conflict - for the time being the US umbrella of protection is (despite popular animosity) paramount to the political and economic stature of all three nations.

 That's all I can manage for now owing to time.

 

R

 

 

I disagree here - what they see is that to avoid a steadily disintegrating nation they need to turn westwards, they rode the commodity booms of the last decade with much rejoicing and then found out how volatile such an economy is when overnight orders dropped, the price of oil and gas fell. I'll say it again, the era of Oil cartels is not going to last forever, Medvedev (however much influence he truly has is debatable) clearly wants to modernise the industry, militarily they can't fund their own projects with their current economic climate, and whether or not demand for oil rises back to pre-crash levels in the near term is unlikely in the near term unless something kicks off in the mid-east- they have huge social problems, a declining birthrate, growing (if such a thing were possible) social discontent, but this is a completely unique nation, where personal suffrance is tolerated to a degree that has always shocked westerners. The only option to become a true world-player again (in any respect other than nuclear stockpiles) is to diversify the economy, investment in technology, a permissive banking and economic system, partnerships and investment from other nations. They see what happens when they export high-technology systems to China, they see their traditional third-world export markets driying up and they see just how volatile their social situation might be in ten years time when the glossy era of a "resurgent russia" has ended up in cynicism and discontent - they have to turn westwards to compete.

But then there's Kasparov, greatest chess player of all time, who is playing politics now - "the only game worth playing" someone said I think. 

 

h*tp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621255075534833.html