Some readers may recall one of my earlier columns about the Kardashev scale. Essentially, this column discussed applying a theoretical framework — in which civilizations are defined by their search for energy — to our reality.

Considering the developing tensions between the United States and the European Union, along with potential future conflicts over natural resources, it is crucial to recognize that a struggle for resources to achieve economic superiority over geopolitical rivals will define international politics. In this world, we risk becoming trapped in a conflict that may be far more dangerous than the Cold War.

To emphasize the point from my previous column, we must use a collective theory based on our exploitation of resources to understand international relations and the course of human development. The “Kardashev scale,” named after the Soviet astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev, is close to achieving this potential. It explains how civilizations theoretically expand from planetary to interplanetary to galactic civilizations, based on their ability to extract energy effectively.

However, it is challenging to apply this particular scale to modern geopolitics involving large powers because it overlooks the historical moment where humanity unites to explore the stars while remaining divided into countries on Earth.

My argument last year was that there is a need for a practical yet visionary understanding of foreign policy. We need to consider the geopolitical system within a material context. This system of thinking must define the patterns in which nations currently seek alliances, trade goods or compete over finite resources. Through this perspective, modern political thinking can project how our states and blocs might evolve into higher civilizations and cultures with greater complexity than individual states, in a similar, yet more practical, way of thinking to Kardashev.

If such a theory for the 21st century and beyond is indeed possible, then a key component of future growth will be resource exploitation and energy generation. In contrast to historical geopolitics, which focused on ideological ambitions, modern geopolitics appears increasingly driven by economic developments.

Arguably, from the end of World War I until the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, questions of geopolitics revolved around ideological struggles and conflicts between opposing political systems. While the struggle for resources was instrumental, this period was defined by a greater struggle to spread and maintain the supremacy of a particular political or cultural system, devolving into world wars, global standoffs and proxy conflicts.

In contrast, the emergence of the European Union and China as modern geopolitical entities reflects their economic dependence on resources beyond their borders, evident in their diplomatic relations with countries that have greater resources. The great powers of our age, such as China, the United States and Russia, and the European Union as a geopolitical bloc, will prioritize maintaining a large share of the world’s oil, coal, iron, rare-earth materials, arable soil and drinking water above all other ambitions.

In fact, the sudden shift in foreign policy under President Donald Trump can also be seen through the perspective of the quest for resources. His ambitions to annex Canada and Greenland, beneath the thin layer of “security concerns,” are more easily seen as ambitions to secure oil and mineral reserves for the U.S. economy. On the other hand, the push to regain ownership of the Panama Canal and subjugate Venezuela’s oil reserves reflects an even greater desire to control the flow of resources not immediately owned by the United States as a geopolitical strategy against other great powers.

These current events suggest that in the coming decades, ambitions to control or manipulate the use of natural resources will increasingly become the dominant dynamic in international politics. This is because our understanding of geopolitics, based on military alliances like NATO and ideological struggles between “East” and “West,” is an outdated set of labels borrowed from the last century.

Instead, this century will be defined by material conditions and pragmatic interests. The future of relations between states, and especially the patterns of behavior regarding great powers, will be based on their influence over other nations through economic interests, not ideological ambitions. Under peaceful means, nations may deepen financial ties and lift trade barriers, while under aggressive means, they may demand and conquer land from other nations.

This stems from a newly emerging norm in which great powers seek to reduce their dependence on global trade by controlling resources, making them less vulnerable in international affairs. The solution to this issue is a geopolitical ambition to create a sovereign, self-sufficient zone of influence surrounding a great power.

In practice, either of these approaches results in the same dynamic in international relations. Nations will seek to secure their economic well-being, enabling them to secure their cultural well-being.

Deniz Gulay is a junior double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.