Is Thomas Gomard, director of the prestigious French Institute of International Relations (Ifri), really about to openly declare his ideological views? The title of his new book "Who controls whom?" explicitly refers to Lenin. According to the historian, a guest on the third episode of "Wild Times", the geopolitical podcast of L"Express, communism is still at the heart of international politics.
Has globalization not witnessed the meteoric rise of China, led by a communist party that is completely Leninist in its actions? Lenin's desire to eliminate the enemy is resurfacing. The return of conflict and power struggles has left liberals bewildered. The transatlantic rift has stunned Europeans who swear by the rule of law. To understand this turn of events, we must delve into geopolitics, decipher the symbols, and examine the psychology of leaders.
That is precisely what Thomas Gomar does, examining the new global divisions through six remarkably well-defined duels: Putin/Zelensky, Trump/von der Leyen, Xi Jinping/Modi, Netanyahu/Khamenei, the IPCC and Fox News, and the Vatican and Silicon Valley. Beyond these individuals and organizations, there are profound mechanisms at work in the modern world that this international relations expert clearly analyzes.
1. Lenin vs. Constant
Liberalism and communism are still at the heart of international politics. Two emblematic figures in these schools of thought can help us understand the current geopolitical controversies: Benjamin Constant (1767-1830) and Lenin (1870-1924). The leading figure of European liberalism and the Bolshevik revolutionary argue with each other a century apart. The former praised "freedom in all things", while the latter established "party discipline". Monuments to Lenin are rising again in Russia, Belarus, and the Donbass of Ukraine. But today Lenin is more a Chinese subject than a Russian. Xi Jinping is more a Leninist than a Marxist. Globalization has witnessed the rapid rise of China, led by a Communist Party that is entirely Leninist in its organization and action. The purges serve to guarantee its "purity". At the BRICS summit in Kazan in October 2024, Xi Jinping referred to a text that influenced Lenin: "What is to be done? The New People" by Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828-1889). Lenin's goal was to destroy his opponents. Benjamin Constant, on the other hand, believed that trade should allow a person to obtain through negotiation what he could hope to obtain through violence. In his magnum opus "On Usurpation", a scathing critique of Napoleon, he wrote: "War and trade are simply two means to the same end - to possess what one desires." In "The Past of an Illusion", François Furet draws a connection between these two authors. Their confrontation has indeed left its mark: this is the world we live in today.
2. Vatican vs. Silicon Valley
Today, there are more iPhone owners in the world than Catholics: 1.8 billion to 1.4 billion. Yet the Catholic Church maintains an unprecedented unity and influence. Outside Europe, Catholicism is experiencing a very strong momentum. The first criticism of the alliance between the White House and big tech came from the Vatican. Two months before his death, Pope Francis sent a letter to American bishops opposing the “mass deportation” measures introduced by the Trump administration. Vice President J. D. Vance, who converted to Catholicism, practically drove his way into the Vatican in a fleet of SUVs to meet the dying Pope and thus gain some recognition. It was as if he wanted to recreate the old dialectic between Pope and Emperor. All he got were three Kinder Surprise eggs for his children. Leo XIV, who holds dual American and Peruvian citizenship, is emphasizing the Church's social doctrine to deal with the development of artificial intelligence. At stake between the Vatican and Silicon Valley is a certain concept of man in the digital age.
3. IPCC vs. Fox News
One of the main challenges of the 21st century is our attitude towards truth. Facts are not opinions: this obvious truth is increasingly forgotten. Climate change is a documented reality, as proven by the authoritative scientific organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The uniqueness of this structure lies in its hybrid nature: political in its intergovernmental principle of operation and scientific in its methodology and recruitment of specialists. Always cautious in its statements, the IPCC functions as a "consensus-building machine". Since its creation in 1996, the Fox News television network, launched by the Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has promoted a counter-narrative skeptical of climate change. Fox News contributed to the media rise of Donald Trump, to whom it owes much. Thirty years later, it is clear that opinion formation has prevailed over scientific rigor. Deeply committed to the fight against climate change, Bill Gates published a statement at the end of 2025 announcing that his foundation would henceforth focus its efforts on fighting poverty and improving public health. The fact that such an iconic figure is abandoning his environmental advocacy reflects the changing balance of power. Even Gates has given up on his goal of mitigating global warming! In a way, Fox News has won!
4. Vladimir Putin vs. Volodymyr Zelensky
Vladimir Putin’s colonial war in Ukraine is a clear military failure. True to Soviet tradition, Putin has used his soldiers as stokers. In Afghanistan, the Russians lost 15,000 men. In Ukraine, the latest figures show 1.2 million casualties (killed, wounded, missing) - a number that demonstrates the military inefficiency of Russia, which in four years of war has conquered only 20% of Ukrainian territory. At the same time, Russia can boast of having achieved some diplomatic success: the majority of countries around the world that condemned the aggression have not actually sanctioned Moscow. And its anti-Western rhetoric is finding fertile ground. Is there a winner? No, not yet. The war in Ukraine is causing Europe, including Russia, to lose its main comparative advantage on the international stage: its strategic stability. That is what Putin has destroyed. In the end, the real winner is Xi Jinping. Since joining the WTO in 2001, China has transformed itself to compete with the United States and Europe, while lifting millions out of poverty. As Russia’s leader for a quarter of a century, Putin has chosen to drag his country into endless war, which has meant severing ties with Europe, its main economic partner. He is rewriting history by wreaking havoc on his neighbor, denying it the right to exist as an independent nation.
5. Donald Trump vs. Ursula von der Leyen
As early as February 2025, at the first meeting of his cabinet, Donald Trump set the tone: "The European Union was created to screw the United States." Five months later, the American president hosted Ursula von der Leyen, in a gold tie, at his golf course in Turnberry, Scotland. Among other shock measures, he announced 15% tariffs on European exporters. The president of the European Commission backed down to preserve Europe's weak economic growth. This meeting, which approved the return of protectionism, above all confirmed the Europeans' subservience to Donald Trump. "Donald Trump ate Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast," commented Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Why did she accept this "dictation"? First, it is important to remember that she was under enormous political and economic pressure to reach a deal. In essence, it was simply doing what the European Council had asked of it. The main problem with this "Turnberry Agreement" is that it confirms Donald Trump's intellectual victory over Europe in the interpretation he imposes on us of how international trade works. And we agree to pay the price, namely the price of our security. But will that be enough? In reality, Brussels and most European leaders are downplaying the ideological offensive launched against them by the American president. They seek to preserve the model of transatlantic relations that emerged after World War II, while Washington wants not only to end it but also to undermine European democracies weakened by immigration. In fact, Ursula von der Leyen and others fail to understand the power of Trump's symbols.
6. European Democracy vs. Maga Democracy
An exceptional political figure, Donald Trump has managed to exert cognitive pressure. In fact, he has subjected transatlantic relations to a powerful paradox. Although they are experiencing a deep ideological divergence, they are undergoing an increasingly strong convergence in the media, as the Epstein affair has demonstrated - a political and media snowball effect that continues to grow and becomes almost oppressive. The emergence of this new cognitive space can be seen as an evolution of democracy, since those who produce the most discourse now gain the upper hand over forms of democratic representation. In this cognitive space, which is primarily a space for maneuver, the attempt to distinguish the virtual from the real no longer makes sense. The question is: do we have the capacity to create a counter-discourse? This is the main problem for Europeans. What can we do in the face of Peter Thiel, with his financial power, intellectual pretensions and control over communication channels? We are forced to listen to him because he creates an asymmetry that increases his influence. For all these reasons, it is very difficult to exist in this cognitive space. Moreover, democracy does not come out unscathed. Look at how the Epstein affair is interpreted and explained in China, Russia and the Arab world. Everywhere it is presented as the most complete example of the decline of the West...