“The World to Come as Seen by the CIA”

Éditions des Équateurs, Robert, Diane; United States, Office of the Director of National Intelligence; United States, Central Intelligence Agency

What perspectives can humanitarians draw from the CIA’s latest forward-looking report?

On May 28, the French translation of the latest CIA report intended for the U.S. administration was published in France by Éditions Équateurs Documents. The report, published under the title “The World to Come as Seen by the CIA – Analyses, Facts, and Figures”, offers humanitarians—always alert and seeking foresight regarding tectonic shifts, crisis arcs, fault lines, and the major trends of “concrete geopolitics” that condition our actions—an opportunity to examine their own perspectives, drawing from the data and interpretations of the main U.S. intelligence agency, which in Europe often carries a negative image.

Before delving into the most significant analyses of the report, it is important to highlight two major “biases”:

The report is conceived, written, and structured solely from the perspective of U.S. interests and “extreme and critical” threats to them. It is likely that a similar report produced by French intelligence, while pointing out the same unavoidable phenomena, would highlight others, create a partially different threat hierarchy, and perhaps provide a more nuanced or complex vision.
The report is designed for the current U.S. administration—i.e., the Trump administration. Between the lines, one can detect a vision aligned with, and anticipating, the ideological assumptions and worldview of that administration. Similarly, the absence of a mention of a phenomenon (climate change, for example, as we will return to) is itself indicative of the threat posed by the refusal of the world’s leading power to address that issue.

With that said, the presentation of global perspectives by the world’s leading power cannot leave one indifferent; above all, it cannot “leave the world indifferent,” since U.S. perceptions, in turn, shape the world.

Structurally, the French edition comprises three distinct parts: the report titled Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the transcript of a U.S. Senate hearing on current global threats, and finally a section Analysis, Facts, and Figures concerning nine countries/states selected, presumably, as significant.

Let us examine, in a non-exhaustive way, the report’s most decisive analyses regarding “extreme and critical” threats to U.S. interests and attempt to discern their consequences or factors for humanitarians in their present and future work.

The first threat cited in the report as affecting U.S. interests (a priority confirmed in the Senate hearing) is organized crime and drug cartels responsible for the massive influx of drugs into the U.S. (notably fentanyl, which has caused widespread deaths), human trafficking, and illegal immigration. While a serious and real threat, this priority is largely influenced by the ideological focus of the current U.S. administration on immigration and related crime (drug inflow, prostitution, and migrant influx often viewed as inseparable). For humanitarians, this political orientation toward border closure and deportation suggests the need to implement or expand programs for the Caminentes (“those who journey”): migrants stranded in Central America or forcibly returned without resources or shelter. The coming years may see a growing population of men, women, and children left with nothing, either there or here, who will require assistance—from daily survival to education.

A persistent threat emphasized by the report is the continuation or increase of terrorism risk. In Asia and the Middle East (except Yemen), ISIS is identified as the primary actor capable of resurging—even without territory—taking advantage of any regional or local instability (e.g., in Syria), expanding as in Somalia or West Africa where it rivals Al-Qaeda networks, and inspiring local initiatives in Europe or Russia. ISIS-Khorasan in Central Asia is described as particularly aggressive, seeking to exploit “high-vulnerability travel routes.” In West Africa and the Sahel-Saharan belt, regional Al-Qaeda affiliates will increasingly destabilize states like Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger (and further toward the Gulf of Guinea), with growing attacks on urban centers and diminishing government control. The report highlights the coordination between active Al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen (AQAP) and Somalia (Shabab) with the Houthis, facilitating access to more sophisticated weapons and possible coordination to strike Western interests and commercial traffic. For humanitarians, already aware of this threat, the report reinforces the need to anticipate risks along local or cross-border routes, isolated settlements, and logistics chains. Western-origin humanitarians will increasingly be threatened and targeted where these organizations expand, and access to the most remote populations may be risky, contested, or blocked.

China is presented as a source of both regional (expansionist policy in the South China Sea, de facto annexation of islands and islets, military encirclement and harassment of Taiwan) and global threats. U.S. analysts anticipate a coherent “galaxy” of major risks from China’s deliberately aggressive actions: disruption of supply routes and logistics chains used by Western countries, threats to critical infrastructure (energy, security, health, transportation, banking networks, etc.), and information, communication, and internet systems; covert use of AI to manipulate data and open-source information (similarly cited for Russia); and data exfiltration from Western internal or external networks. Humanitarians, who position emergency stocks abroad and ship supplies worldwide, must consider the vulnerability of their logistics chains. Likewise, humanitarian organizations increasingly produce and rely on borderless digital information—data, communications, mapping. To what extent are our systems immune to intrusion, exfiltration, or manipulation?

The Chinese threat is compounded by Russia, which poses risks to Western satellite networks and related communications systems. Humanitarians must question their increasing dependence on vulnerable satellite links. Notably, the report does not mention the risk of Russia cutting undersea internet cables, despite NATO taking it seriously—perhaps intentionally downplaying Russian culpability.

SCO Summit, Shanghai 2025 ©X_Narendramodi

Regarding Ukraine, U.S. analysts do not foresee an imminent collapse along the contact line. Their assessment can be summarized: “The longer the war continues in Ukraine, the more Ukraine will lose.” The report notes Russia’s current military advantage and capacity to continue its campaign longer than Kyiv. Compared to the French former Chief of Staff’s caution that victory favors the adversary who can endure slightly longer, the CIA report highlights the growing risk of large-scale conflict between NATO allies and Russia, including potential nuclear weapons use. While the humanitarian role in a nuclear conflict is theoretical, humanitarians must consider what their role—or absence thereof—would be in a high-intensity, widespread European conflict, where operational procedures, safety guidelines, and logistics could collapse. The potential scale of displacement and humanitarian need would far exceed current capacities, placing humanitarian organizations among the first victims of high-intensity war in the West.

In the Middle East, written before recent Israeli-U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear and military installations, the report lists expected critical threats: attacks on Israel and U.S. facilities, blockages of energy, trade, and logistics routes by Iran or its proxy in Yemen (Houthis). Regarding Syria, the report underscores volatility after Bashar al-Assad’s fall and the risk of ISIS resurgence. For humanitarians, vigilant in the region, this is a reminder: worsening political and military volatility, attacks on minorities (Alawites, Druze), interventions affecting Rojava, or renewed Turkish action would jeopardize access to isolated or displaced populations.

As noted, what a report omits can be as telling as what it includes: climate change. During the Senate hearing, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, was directly questioned about its absence. Her response—that the report focuses on the most extreme and critical national security threats—implies to humanitarians that the U.S. is unlikely to fund adaptation or resilience programs for vulnerable populations. Consequently, humanitarian needs related to climate change may exceed expectations and capacities. By contrast, French think tanks, such as Institut Montaigne, acknowledge climate’s centrality to policy planning by 2040.

The final section covers nine countries, revealing symbolic and strategic choices. Notably, Denmark, Greenland (separately treated), and Canada are included. Two cases stand out: Syria—marked as “head of state: vacant,” highlighting U.S. ambiguity regarding figures like Ahmed al-Charaa/Al Joulani—and Turkey, whose dossier underscores the massive refugee intake, highlighting the complex humanitarian challenge of new arrivals, return policies, or mass movements toward Europe.

Conclusion

High-intensity Russia-NATO conflict where humanitarian actors would have limited role; growing instability in the Middle East, West Africa, the Sahel-Saharan belt, and Central Asia; threats to supply chains; ongoing risks to information and communication systems; possible data manipulation; U.S. disregard of climate-related humanitarian impacts; and massive unmet humanitarian needs. While the CIA report may be oriented, sometimes simplistic or unnuanced, one fact is clear: humanitarians face pervasive danger and must act—or reinvent themselves—to remain relevant.

Pierre Brunet

Writer and Humanitarian

Pierre Brunet is a novelist and member of the Board of Directors of the NGO SOLIDARITES INTERNATIONAL. He became involved in humanitarian work in Rwanda in 1994, then in Bosnia in 1995, and has since returned to the field (Afghanistan in 2003, the Calais jungle in 2016, migrant camps in Greece and Macedonia in 2016, Iraq and north-eastern Syria in 2019, Ukraine in 2023). . Pierre Brunet’s novels are published by Calmann-Lévy: Barnum in 2006, JAB in 2008, Fenicia in 2014 and Le triangle d’incertitude in 2017. A former journalist, Pierre Brunet regularly publishes analytical articles, opinion pieces and columns.

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :

Occident, global enemy no. 1, exclusive interview with Jean-François Colosimo

Alain Boinet:

In your book “The West, World Enemy No. 1,” you write: “We didn’t see it coming. Then we couldn’t believe our eyes. And then, it happened.” For our readers who haven’t yet read your book, what event are you referring to?

Jean-François Colosimo:

After the collapse of the totalitarian East in the face of the liberal West, we thought globalization would eventually bring about perpetual peace. The international institutions inherited from 1945 and reaffirmed after 1989 seemed destined to last forever, smoothing over—or even resolving—the conflicts and imbalances that now set North against South. But that didn’t happen. Suddenly, the axis of the world shifted, and the global order imploded. Former autocratic empires we thought were gone for good reemerged. On the ruins of their forced Westernization in the twentieth century—a Westernization that was purely revolutionary, either socialist or nationalist—they embarked on a massive identity rearmament, instrumentalizing their religious foundations. This includes Putin’s “Orthodox” Russia, Erdogan’s “Sunni” Turkey, Khamenei’s “Shia” Iran, Xi’s “Confucian” China, and Modi’s “Hindu” India. They differ on many points, but they share a common enemy they call the “West”—a power they see as domineering, selfish, hypocritical, and decadent; namely, America and Europe, from whose grip they believe they must liberate the peoples of the Earth.

The West, World Enemy No. 1, Jean-François Colosimo, Albin Michel

Occident, ennemi mondial n°1, Jean François-Colosimo, Albin Michel

AB:

Does the election of Donald Trump and his MAGA project embody a sixth empire, further complicating and destabilizing the global order, even to the point of chaos?

JFC:

The transatlantic bond is an illusion. In reality, it conceals the New World’s grip over the Old Continent. It’s the same with the usual opposition between a virtuous democratic America and a reactionary religious America. In truth, the founding myth of the United States, modeled on ancient Rome, created an imperial republic that sees itself as divinely destined to rule in the name of Good. It’s the only country where religious extremism succeeded by adopting absolute political liberalism and merging various beliefs into the single cult of a civic religion. On this point, Trump is not so different from his predecessors. What marks a turning point—one that goes beyond him—is that the United States, to slow or reverse its likely decline, instinctively returns to its original mercantilism, rooted in its sense of divine election: isolationism to protect its domestic markets and interventionism to conquer foreign ones. In today’s context of global resource scarcity, this inaugurates a hypercapitalism based more than ever, in Washington, on the consolidation of the military-industrial complex, glorification of power, and the imposition of faits accomplis disguised as better deals.

©US Governement, Trump Fort Bag North Carolina 2025

AB:

Does Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine—a permanent member of the UN Security Council—represent a “change of era”? And doesn’t resorting to war to settle disputes risk inspiring other states?

JFC:

Conflicts are erupting everywhere without clear reasons or solutions, and we perceive them very selectively. Just think of the war in Yemen, which, unlike others, barely stirred our youth or wider public opinion. In Putin’s case, militarism is integral to his authoritarianism. Each time—attacking Georgia in 2008, Crimea and Donbas in 2014, Kyiv in 2023—it has been about saving his kleptocratic, oligarchic rule by mobilizing the masses around revenge. Erdogan in the Caucasus, Khamenei in the Levant, Xi and Modi in Asia all act in similar ways. The hasty U.S. withdrawal from Kabul in 2022, ordered by Joe Biden after twenty years of occupation, at the cost of $3.5 trillion and 200,000 deaths, ultimately abandoning Afghan women to the Taliban, triggered a global rush toward sacralized violence and open contempt for human rights.

AB:

Faced with the war Vladimir Putin has declared on it and Donald Trump’s criticism, is Europe in danger—and is it ready to respond?

JFC:

“The West” is a vague, multifaceted notion with no stable definition, used purely ideologically. Since 1945, this catch-all term has had concrete meaning only through NATO—the military pact that cements Europe’s complete dependence on the United States for defense. The European Union was built on the utopia of peace. Today, it finds itself defenseless just as America turns away from the Atlantic and toward the new geopolitical arena of the Pacific. Moreover, an egalitarian Union of 27 can only be divided. Only a “Carolingian Europe” could find the means to resist. Even then, the question would remain: what are we fighting for? Since the invasion of Ukraine, which brought conventional war back to the heart of Europe after the terrible tribal wars that set the former Yugoslavia ablaze from 1989 on, we keep speaking of the need for a great awakening. But it would also take the will to fight for an ideal—and to accept the possibility of dying for that ideal. Spiritual exhaustion is as dangerous as strategic inertia.

©North Atlantic Council | Photo: Ministry of © Foreign Affairs Government of the Netherlands

AB:

In your book, you predict the eventual self-extinction of the Russian, Chinese, Persian, Turkish, and Indian empires. But liberal democracy is under threat and weakening in Europe and beyond; the Russian threat is real; and Western and European influence is declining worldwide. How do you see this dilemma for Europe?

JFC:

From the dawn of modern times to today, these empires have constantly clashed—and they will again tomorrow. At present, the prospect of our destruction—or at least marginalization—makes them temporarily united. Likewise, the neo-colonialist carving up of weak countries in the South, starting with sub-Saharan Africa, where Chinese, Russians, and Turks rush in. Europe is out of date with the new world map. The price of its blindness will be catastrophic for itself—and also for the most vulnerable peoples, if it lets them sink into this new servitude.

AB:

What use is the UN today, and isn’t its weakening also a sign of a new international order taking shape?

JFC:

Like its counterparts—the IMF, WTO, WHO, or FAO—the UN is a drifting corpse whose resolutions echo into emptiness. The UN chamber, weighed down by conflicts of interest and hijacked legitimacy, is at best the grandest stage for insincere actors performing the death of universalist diplomacy. That’s just how it is. A pluriverse world like the one we’re entering demands more pressure than talk.

AB:

Between a fracturing globalization and the rise of empires like the BRICS, as seen at the Kazan summit in October 2024, are the rights of peoples to self-determination and human rights in danger—and what can be done to protect and promote them?

JFC:

The BRICS are a loose constellation that these neo-empires try to exploit for their own benefit. Our mistake is letting them do so instead of offering the less aggressive countries of the Global South a new justice pact—which, as a first effect, would help slow the migration crisis. The problem isn’t so much that we can’t afford to fund it, but that we refuse to even imagine it. Politically, Europe’s lack of a strong reaction to, for instance, the death of Russia’s Alexei Navalny seems to sound the death knell for dissidents who say no to tyranny in Turkey, Iran, China, and India—these concentration-camp states.

BRICS meeting in Kazan, Russia, October 22-24, 2024

AB:

Official Development Assistance and humanitarian aid are collapsing in most OECD countries, with serious consequences. How do you see this change and its impact, and what can be done?

JFC:

This retreat is not only economically counterproductive and morally wrong but historically irresponsible. It is on the ground abandoned by the rich that the chaos of the poor’s revolt grows. We failed to see that globalization works in two ways: a centripetal unification of humanity reduced to consumption is matched by a centrifugal explosion of humanity driven by demands. These two forces will continue together, and the challenge is to regulate this infernal machine whose destructive effects appear between continents and within megacities. One partial remedy—though not a cure—could be to bring together the great faith-based organizations, working charitably and outside confessional lines in interfaith dialogue. Through their active, impartial aid, guided only by immediate human need, they could help fill the gap left by so-called “sovereign” states.

Presentation of the United Nations humanitarian reform at the General Assembly of Solidarités International.

AB:

Faced with the Trump-Putin duopoly, doesn’t the need for European strategic autonomy retrospectively vindicate General de Gaulle?

JFC:

It’s really more of a tripod, because Trump and Putin don’t exist without Xi Jinping. Europe must understand this if it doesn’t want to fall from Charybdis to Scylla. Current talk of switching alliances to Beijing is sheer madness if we pause for even a second to consider the intrinsically totalitarian nature of the People’s Republic. Paris has neither friends nor enemies—only allies and adversaries, as de Gaulle reminded us when he returned in 1958. The General didn’t confuse independence with indifference. The reforms he undertook against wasteful systems remain relevant today. France has nuclear power, a battle-hardened army, a global maritime presence, and a long tradition of cultural dialogue and humanitarian action. It is up to France to awaken Europe. Once again, the real question is whether the French can still dream of themselves. But if, as so often in our history, we miss the moment, we will condemn ourselves to a nightmare.

AB:

How would you like to conclude this interview?

JFC:

By telling the readers of Défis Humanitaires—especially on the occasion of its hundredth issue—that, as they know, everything starts now, with each and every one of them. And alongside those Ukrainians, Armenians, women of Tehran, Uyghurs, and Dalits who, against the empire of lies, show us the path of courage

Jean-François Colosimo

Jean-François Colosimo is currently director of Editions du Cerf, having previously served as president of the Centre national du Livre and of the Institut de théologie orthodoxe Saint-Serge. He is the author of critical essays and documentary films questioning contemporary mutations of the divine in politics, most recently “Occident ennemi mondial numéro 1” published in 2024 by Albin Michel and “Chaos planétaire” in preparation for FranceTV.

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :

Share :

Share :