Editorial: The new geopolitical landscape: blocs, values, and global uncertainties

The East, or Asian bloc, is developing, bringing unity to what was once «non-aligned countries» at the expense of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) attempt to order it in a West-like form.3. Now, China and India divide Asia´s leadership and have de facto created an IndoPacific geopolitical reality that stretches from the Gulf to the Yellow Sea, defined by its refusal of the liberal Western values.4. Russia, and its Eurasian, former-Soviet satellites regain relevance through unilateral Imperial policy and pursues its interest in conflict with the core of the West (Europe, no longer the USA) in a new squabble for Africa that has its hotspot in the Sahel.Again, at its core, the research topic aimed in the second place to put in evidence that even uncertainly could and should be interpreted in many forms, the proper way of articulating these interpretations was through a consideration of the values that regulate different societies and ultimately illuminates international problems: as the World Values Survey of 2022 indicates, there is a divergence between Western values and the «rest of the world» values. Therefore, much of present-day discussion on the «assault on liberal order» would merely reflect the reality of social values across the world: the expansion of Westernlike consumer patterns (specially in what technology use is concerned) would not change the historical political realities of different regions. We had, therefore, a very extensiveexcessive, really -field to cover in this special issue.Despite our contention at the beginning of this project, the finished form hardly evidences the original idea. Blocs play a role in the papers presented here, but not a central one. Uncertainty is of no interest to researchers in geopolitics, it seems. And values are a lateral issue, as far as these papers go. Historic concerns, we can add, are also almost completely absent despite this historical moment in which technology makes evident that the geopolitics of the 19 th century are not just obsolete (they have been since nuclear power came into existence) but they are in fact an hindrance when interpreting a world that stretches from the depths of the ocean's abyss to outer space and, above all, through cyber-realities.Consequently, as editors, we have divided the contributions to this project into categories that reflect the nature of the papers. They are: The reader's interests will of course reorder such a conventional arrangement dictated by mere historical precedence of concepts. The decisive factor for the editors is the diversity of positions, origins and backgrounds of contributors. During the 14 months we edited this issue, we managed to stay away from the growing malaise between Western and Eastern researchers (and reviewers), and the result covers much if the reality it should address (the lack of US-specific papers is noticeable, but not by editorial choice). However, we have faced repeatedly situations that go beyond the scope of academic affairs (rejected papers, withdrawal) and enter the realm of sheer disgrace, such as valid papers abandoned by the authors for fear for its life. In its microscopic dimension, this too reflects geopolitics.There is no conclusion to be reached, the reality is evolving too quickly to even aspire to that. Despite recent attempts by authors that also can rely on their own experience in international politics (like Yannis Varoufakis essay on Techno-feudalism) to develop ordered arguments about global realities, we see no valid reason to question the premise of this project: social values are driving forces of bloc-alignments and the uncertainty in geopolitics is mostly driven by tensions inside the national powers with global relevance 2 -Trump's purge if the American public service, Xi's purge of top military leadership and Putin's internal crackdown on opposition (and migrations) provide some evidence on this matter. These tensions coincide in diverse regions, with greater success (China, Russia, maybe the USA, Israel, Hungary, maybe Italy) and fail in others (South Korea, Brazil) in a common trend, that of concentrating power in the Executive branch by eroding the separation of powers and promoting a «strong man» figurehead. But again, this is a matter for another topic.In closing, we can't help to notice that contemporary political discussion, both of internal and international affairs, frequently evokes «the people» but never discusses it.Simultaneously, the concept of people, once central in political theory is now ignored. In the new tech-driven, executive-led political realities, this is probably something that deserves attention.2 Trump's purge if the American public service, Xi's purge of top military leadership and Putin's internal crackdown on opposition (and migrations) should make this point self-evident. (DEVEMOS EVITAR USAR FOOTNTES)