>>2569626>What will the world look like in 2050
>Europe & "western" countries.I think that Europe will essentially go further down the social-democrat line, whilst maintaining a strategic position. Given the fiasco that has been the recent surge of the far right, most major parties in european countries will keep away from identity politics to focus more on the economy and climate. The result will probably look something like sweden welfare-state capitalism becoming the norm, with perhaps the more "left-wing" countries like Spain or the nordics implementing genuine socialist reforms like nationalization of the banks and worker's representation in firms' decisionnary councils.
Geopolitically, I think that Europe will remain largely pragmatic. If the US declines, then Europe will turn to China. Vice-versa, if China declines, then Europe will pursue its self-interest by rebalancing its favors towards America.
Some countries like Japan and Korea, because of their nature, will essentially be fucked and endure long-term crisis. However, imo if Europe follows its current trends with slight modifications (like tuning down the identity politics), then I wouldn't be surprised if it achieved state-managed social-capitalism.
>MENAThe oil countries slowly decline but keep a good amount of power. The fall isn't dramatic but noticeable, somewhat like Japan post-90s. Some countries manage to diversify and become hubs for "new" capitalists, like the UAE, but most simply decline.
The other non-rich arab countries stay largely in the same position. A lack of strong governance & resilient institutions makes them prone to violence, in particular religious one, and prevents them from having any long-lasting state. Lastly, Israel manages to fully annex Palestine by 2035-2040 but stops there because of its unpopular image and the general exhaustion of supporting a genocidal state. It remains largely wealthy and "western" in its development.
>RussiaThis is one of the more interesting questions desu. Even though Russia nominally hasn't managed to clung much to its empire, it's actually managed to convince people otherwise, especially so in countries in which they hold strategic interest. Economically, I hardly see them actually innovating or changing much : it remains largely some form of oligarchic-state capitalism where the power resides in the hands of a few individual who control _everything_. I think that Russia and its allies will essentially entrench themselves, perhaps manage to recoup one or another country in their sphere of influence, but will largely stay a mirage of a great power. It really depends on how well they do in Africa, how stable are the central-asian countries, and how much of Ukraine's resilience is actually due to NATO imports.
>ChinaEssentially what it is now but better, and stronger. China has a near complete control over their population, making it hardly concievable for them to actually fail at their goals and ambitions. Keeping to their pragmatic georelations, they might ally more with the Western nations (except the U.S.) to recenter power around them. However, if a crisis comes up, they might also very well align more radically with anti-west countries and create a new bipolar world (I find this to be unlikely though given their regionalist stance).
Economically, China largely catches up to the west and even surpasses it. It doesn't focus as much on "social" policies that the west has but becomes more innovating (already the case) across all sectors, more productive etc. They largely become what the US was to the rest of the world economically in the 60s.
>USAI think that the US will become fractured within itself. The political polarization will create an unreconciliable relation between red and blue states, pushing them to attempt at more autonomy and federalization. For instance, California and Alabama have become so distant from one another that I find it hard to believe that they both wouldn't pursue for more de facto autonomy from one another.
This, in my eyes, will create 2 things. Firstly, the major coastal blue states will essentially become european-like states. For red states however, I think that another division will ensue between the rich and poor ones. States like Florida & Texas will attract a new emerging class of capitalists disaffected from the traditional blue states and will pour investments (and thus require low regulation), but states in the MidWest for instance will largely stay poor and have little substantial progress.
In all cases, except if some cesaric figure manages to revitalize America whilst staying true to its institution, it's becoming more and more apparent to anyone that America's prestige relies on its economic and militarily might than ideologic purity. This makes it hard to justify complete allegiance to it when new actors (mostly China) are emerging.
>Africa, LatAm, other asian countriesCan't say. Really contingent on how they handle population growth, climate change, and economic models.
Tldr, a most polarized world with more "extremes" ideological model.