The future demands trailblazers, not gatekeepers
When times are stable and the path is clear and well-paved, conventional thinkers thrive. They know the terrain, the tools, and the rules. Their expertise brings efficiency and stability – qualities that matter deeply in times of order. But we're no longer living in such times.
The old order is crumbling and a new order is being born; one defined by what we understand, what we value, and what we are willing to defend. Authoritarian resurgence, climate change, collapsing biodiversity, disruptive technologies, and trade wars are erasing the old maps we've relied on.
When the road disappears into uncertainty, it's the divergent thinkers and polymaths who become indispensable. They're the ones who see new trails where others see only trees. They reframe the problem, question inherited assumptions and bring together knowledge from across various disciplines. In times of systemic shocks, it's not expertise in one field that saves us but the ability to connect the dots across many. This is the kind of competence needed in the 21 st century because everything is linked and disruption moves fast.
This isn't to diminish conventional thinkers. Their depth is critical, especially when systems stabilise again. But right now, we are not managing stability. We are navigating flux and chaos. Too often, conventional thinkers become gatekeepers, keeping polymaths and divergent thinkers on the sidelines. In the era we are living through today, that's a grave mistake.
This is especially true in Brussels, where siloed thinking still dominates institutions caught between converging storms, from a changing security environment to implementing the Green Deal, to digital sovereignty. These times call for integrators and improvisers, the ones who can hold paradox and possibility in the same breath.
In seemingly stable eras, society often treats divergent thinkers as threats. Giordano Bruno , a 16th-century philosopher and mystic, dared to surmise the twinkling lights in the night sky were distant suns with their own planets, an idea that was scientifically prophetic and spiritually radical. For this and other heresies, he was burned at the stake. Bruno's fate reminds us how institutions often crush the minds that glimpse the future first.
Yet when systems begin to falter, it is precisely these outsiders whose perspectives become essential. Their unconventional ideas, once labelled dangerous or absurd, offer new maps when the old ones fail. A resilient society doesn't just tolerate such thinkers; it protects them, recognising that today's heresy may hold the key to tomorrow's survival. That means managing dissent not as a threat, but as a vital sign of health, and building a culture where outliers are not only protected but valued.
In a volatile world, adaptability is the new intelligence and divergent thinkers, when grounded, are among the most adaptable minds we have. Not because they ignore structure, but because they know how to rebuild it when it breaks. As Darwin suggested, it's not the strongest or the smartest who survive, but those most responsive to change.
If we want to build a future that reflects our values not just functionally, but ethically and imaginatively, we must stop sidelining divergent thinkers. They are not outliers. They are the scouts, integrators, and architects of what comes next.
In an era of collapsing certainties, there is no clear path to follow. We must learn to walk without one and to do that, we need those who can see what isn't yet visible and connect what no longer fits. We won't flourish in this century by gatekeeping divergent ideas, but by carving new paths through the wilderness, together.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
4 days ago
- Euractiv
The threat is coordinated, our response is not
Chris Kremidas-Courtney is a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre, associate fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, and author of 'The Rest of Your Life: Five Stories of Your Future.' Russia and China are actively engaging in a new kind of conflict, one that targets infrastructure, information, and influence rather than just territory. Yet most democracies remain caught in outdated frameworks, still approaching security through the Cold War lens of deterrence, and tidy distinctions between war and peace. This battle is for influence and control across every key domain: information, infrastructure, supply chains, cyberspace, and even the human mind. And right now, the West is losing not because our adversaries are stronger, but because we're uncoordinated, reactive, and politically fragile. While Russia's military is bogged down in Ukraine, Moscow has quietly expanded its use of cognitive warfare, now powered by AI and producing a flood of false content. By manipulating narratives, distorting facts, and fueling polarisation, Russia seeks to weaken Western resolve before a shot is even fired. China's strategy is more patient, but no less potent. Through its dominance of global supply chains, Beijing has gained immense economic leverage . Chinese actors have also been caught prepositioning inside Western power grids, probing vulnerabilities to exploit later. We're not only trading with China, we're also entrusting it with the keys to our critical infrastructure. Meanwhile, China and Russia are deepening their military-technical ties, including joint submarine development, heavy-lift helicopters, and the construction of a missile attack warning system. These developments show a deepening of China and Russia's defence and security partnership . Economic sanctions are increasingly ineffective, largely because democracies can't stomach the political costs. As one recent analysis put it, 'The West can't survive the sanctions it needs to deter China.' When gas prices spike or critical imports dry up, public support crumbles and so does our deterrence. China continues supplying Russia with dual-use items like semiconductors and ball bearings, helping Moscow replace components lost to sanctions. This exchange not only fuels Russia's war against Ukraine, it actively undermines the effectiveness of the West's economic levers of power . Beijing and Moscow are playing the long game. They're sanction-proofing their economies while weaponising our openness and indecision. They're also betting on us being too slow, divided, or distracted to respond. Unfortunately, they're often right. Take the current situation in Libya. Italy and Greece have been sounding the alarm about Turkey and Russian-backed destabilisation in North Africa, along with weaponised migration flows and Russian navy repositioning in the Mediterranean. Yet their calls for help have been ignored by their allies. In Europe, we tend to think of Poland and the Baltic regions as frontline states. But Italy, Greece, and others on NATO's southern flank are also frontline states of hybrid warfare, weaponised migration, and maritime competition. When the security concerns of frontline states are not taken seriously, everyone becomes more vulnerable. We can also look at the EU's China strategy. While Brussels may have labelled Beijing a 'systemic rival,' most member states still treat China's expertise as an afterthought. Unlike the US, which created a 'China House' for cross-agency coordination, Europe has no comparable structure – leaving it flat-footed when decisions need to be made fast. By contrast, China and Russia conduct annual strategic security consultations and coordinate via institutionalised five-year military cooperation plans. Though not a formal alliance, their sustained coordination outpaces the ad hoc responses of Western democracies . What should we do? First, we need to stop pretending these are disconnected problems. They are expressions of the same campaign to reshape the global order in favour of authoritarian power. Europe and its allies must build permanent strategic capacities to respond and shape outcomes before crises escalate. Second, we must strengthen our 'asymmetric resilience'. That means diversifying supply chains, investing in local production, and scrubbing our infrastructure for vulnerabilities. Finally, we must prepare for hybrid threats the way we once prepared for nuclear ones: with scenario planning, joint exercises, and rapid-response mechanisms that include both civil and military sectors. From power grids to migration routes, the frontline of conflict has changed. Our defence posture must change with it. There is good news: When democracies act together, they are formidable. We've outmatched authoritarian powers before and not through force alone. We did so by staying flexible, principled, and united. But coordination begins with clarity. We must recognise that these are not isolated incidents but interconnected elements of a deliberate strategy to reshape the global balance of power. Effective response requires more than awareness. It demands institutional reform, strategic foresight, and the political will to act before the next crisis breaks.
Euractiv
6 days ago
- Euractiv
A land swap won't bring peace to Ukraine
Juraj Majcin is a Policy Analyst at the European Policy Centre in Brussels. His work focuses on European and transatlantic security and defence policy, the mobilisation of the European defence industry, and the broader geopolitical dimensions of security. U.S. President Donald Trump has said he may consider a land-swap deal with Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine, ahead of their planned meeting in Alaska – a proposal that defies Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's categorical refusal to cede land, which he says would violate his country's constitution and reward naked aggression. Rather than tightening sanctions or ramping up military aid, Trump, who only recently threatened Moscow with sanctions out of frustration at Putin's disinterest in genuine peace talks, is now weighing a concession over the heads of Ukrainians themselves, while granting Putin what he has craved since launching his full-scale invasion: a stage-managed summit with the U.S. president to shatter his isolation and revive his stature as a global leader. Irrespective of the strategic blunder of rewarding Vladimir Putin with a high-profile summit and even entertaining concessions while Russia shows no appetite for compromise and continues its relentless onslaught – one fact must be clear: Land swaps will not solve this war. This conflict is not about territory. As former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski once observed, 'Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire.' That reality underpins Vladimir Putin's campaign to erase Ukraine's independent statehood and block its Euro-Atlantic future. His ambitions will not be satisfied with holding Donetsk or Luhansk; he seeks control over the whole of Ukraine as the cornerstone for resurrecting a Russian empire lost with the Soviet Union's collapse, an event he famously called at the 2007 Munich Security Conference 'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.' It is true that in some cases land swaps can bring peace. The Camp David Accords of 1978 saw Israel withdraw completely from the Sinai Peninsula, captured during the 1967 Six-Day War, in exchange for Egypt's recognition of Israel's right to exist. The peace has held for nearly half a century, earning Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin the Nobel Peace Prize, an accolade Donald Trump, too, appears to covet. But the lasting peace between Israel and Egypt was not the product of the land swap itself. It was the result of Israel's clear military victories, which allowed it to negotiate from a position of strength, and Egypt's willingness to end the conflict. Ukraine faces the opposite reality: It is being asked to negotiate while the war is still raging, with its territory under occupation and its enemy showing no signs of restraint. Far from concluding a war Ukraine had won, such a deal would reward ongoing aggression and invite further attacks. If history is to be our guide, the more relevant analogy is not Camp David but Munich, 1938. Then, Western leaders, French President Édouard Daladier and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, handed over the Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia, to Adolf Hitler in the hope of preserving peace, despite his openly expansionist ambitions. What followed was not 'peace for our time,' but the outbreak of the Second World War. Following the lessons of history, a far better model for Ukraine would be closer to the Korean Peninsula after 1953, a ceasefire backed by a strong allied presence, where Ukraine remains militarily supported, firmly integrated into the EU and NATO, and protected against renewed assault. This is the outcome to strive for, not to be sweet-talked by Putin into accepting Russia's maximalist demands: no NATO membership, a demilitarised Ukraine, and amputated borders. Sometimes, genuine peace is only possible after military victory. Anything less risks turning a temporary truce into a prelude for an even bigger war.
Euractiv
07-08-2025
- Euractiv
What the EU-US deal means for Brussels' ties to China
Since clinching the 'biggest trade deal ever' last month, the EU and US have repeatedly clashed over what was actually agreed – but on economic security, they seem firmly aligned, with China in their sights. Despite offering conflicting accounts of the deal, both sides explicitly pledged to 'enhance supply chain resilience', 'address non-market policies', and 'cooperate' on investment screening and export controls. All of which appears a thinly veiled reference to reducing dependence on China for strategic products and protecting Western industries from increasingly fierce Chinese competition. Economic security was also 'one of the easier issues' in recent EU-US talks, a senior European Commission official said. 'All the economic security tools and instruments that we have make for a good conversation,' the official said, adding that further discussions are planned. The use of near-identical language suggests the EU – officially committed to 'de-risking but not decoupling' from China – is moving closer to America's tougher stance, analysts say. 'I think it's just the final sign that the EU is throwing in its lot with the US on China,' said Varg Folkman, an analyst at the European Policy Centre, a Brussels-based think-tank. 'I definitely think it's going to be viewed like that by the Chinese – they would be fools not to do it.' Beijing, which has condemned previous US trade deals with the UK and Vietnam, reacted slightly more mildly to the EU–US agreement. 'We firmly oppose any party's move to strike a deal at the cost of China's interests,' said China's foreign affairs spokesperson Guo Jiakun last Monday – one day after the EU-US deal was announced. Few details Despite broad commitments, Brussels has offered little clarity on how the EU and the US plan to jointly address Beijing's 'overcapacities' or its grip over the world's supply of critical minerals, essential for cars, smartphones, and other advanced technologies. 'It seems to me that not all of the information about the EU-US deal has been released – especially when it comes to the economic security part,' said Alicia García Herrero, senior fellow at the Bruegel think tank. 'We're missing a big part of that picture.' The senior Commission official said that a forthcoming EU-US joint statement on the deal – which is '90-95% ready' – will not offer specific details on economic security cooperation, but will instead contain 'fairly general language' that Brussels will 'develop [as] we go." García Herrero said the vagueness is likely intentional, as China is not only the world's second-largest economy but also the EU's second-largest trading partner. Japan, which struck a similar deal with Washington last month, has also refrained from elaborating on how it plans to cooperate with the US over its China policy, she noted. 'The Japanese didn't put on paper their disagreements and what they're going to do, because it's too risky,' García Herrero said. 'For Europe, it would also raise questions: 'Are we encircling China?' So there's no point.' Tit for (trade) spat The deal also comes amid worsening EU-China ties, long strained by human rights concerns and Taiwan's status. Beijing's introduction of sweeping export controls on critical minerals earlier this year – which came in response to Trump's imposition of a 145% blanket levy on Beijing – has rattled EU policymakers and forced temporary production shutdowns in Europe. China's growing ties with Russia have exacerbated tensions as European leaders scramble to sustain support for Ukraine amid mounting Russian attacks and fading US backing. Yet Trump, who has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and promised to end the Ukraine war 'within 24 hours,' has recently shifted tone – threatening 'secondary tariffs' on India and China for purchasing Russian oil. Some analysts suggest Brussels may have won that shift as a concession during trade negotiations. 'On the issue of Europe's economic security, the US has, in my view, been willing to offer something: it is putting pressure on India and China to cut ties with Russia,' said García Herrero. "The US wants to encircle China and cut it out of supply chains. Europe is saying, 'Fine, I'm with you' – but they want the US to get tougher on Russia." 'A flimsy foundation' Still, others question whether the EU-US deal offers much foundation for economic or political cooperation. 'Given the overall shakiness of the deal,' the commitment to boost economic security cooperation 'looks like a flimsy foundation for serious transatlantic cooperation,' said Nils Redeker, deputy director at the Jacques Delors Centre. Redeker argued the EU's China policy has been weakened by 'internal divisions' that also severely hindered the bloc's negotiations with Washington. He pointed to the sharp divisions among EU capitals over the Commission's decision last year to impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. The levies were strongly backed by France but fiercely opposed by Germany, whose export-oriented car sector is heavily tied to the Chinese market. 'One key lesson from the deal with the US is that the EU still hasn't found its strategic footing in a rapidly changing trade landscape,' Redeker said. 'And for now, the same goes for its approach to China.' (de, mm)
