Mass politics has vanished from world affairs – and that may be no bad thing
One of the defining features of our time is the retreat of mass politics and the rise of personalities. Across the world, states now operate between two poles. In the West, the population is almost completely excluded from decision-making. In Russia, China and India, by contrast, public participation is channelled into clear national priorities: survival, sovereignty, and development.
Despite the daily drama of headlines, modern international life is surprisingly monotonous. Wars may shock, but they rarely change the architecture of the system. Revolutions are no longer driven by movements of millions. They are driven by a handful of leaders. This is the inevitable result of the disappearance of “big ideas” that once mobilised societies. History suggests this may not be a tragedy: the great ideas of the 20th century dragged humanity into great wars.
It is wrong to think revolutions in world politics are only about state structures. The Reformation, the birth of the Westphalian system, European integration, the creation of ASEAN all reshaped the order. But that creative energy has been exhausted. Even modern innovations like BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are the work of statecraft, not mass aspiration. The state has reasserted itself as the sole authority in international affairs.
The crucial difference today is whether individual states align with the tides of history. The West finds itself on the defensive, clinging to institutions it once built. Russia, China and much of the Global South act with initiative, seizing the moment. The danger is not popular uprisings but systemic breakdown in states powerful enough to cause global disruption. Here Western Europe is most at risk.
The last time the crowd truly changed the world was more than a century ago. The French Revolution and the American Civil War created the West as a hegemon. The Russian Revolution of 1917 shook the global order for decades. Imported ideas in China rallied a fragmented people and built the base of today’s economic giant.
In contrast, today’s social monotony troubles academics more than practitioners. It forces them to study the role of individuals, the least predictable factor of all. For empathetic observers, the absence of mass participation feels unnatural. Yet this may be preferable to the past, when masses whipped up by ideology destroyed entire societies. Now wars are the work of professional soldiers, not millions marching under banners.
The big organisations born of the 20th century are withering too. The UN and its alphabet soup of agencies are dying not only because the West has captured their levers of power, but because mass politics itself has receded. If nations no longer mobilise millions at home, why would they do so internationally?
The summit table has replaced the street. Direct meetings between leaders are what matter. Russia and the United States remain the decisive actors, with China and increasingly India in the mix. When Xi Jinping meets Vladimir Putin, or when Moscow and Washington talk face to face, the world shifts. When European prime ministers issue declarations in Brussels, little moves.
Western Europe once prided itself on shaping the rules. In the 1980s and 1990s, associations of workers and entrepreneurs lobbied furiously in Brussels for freer markets. Today, the offices of the European Commission and Parliament generate statements that nobody – not Washington, Beijing, or even their own member states – takes seriously. There is no point storming doors that lead nowhere.
In the United States, the rise of Donald Trump was described as a revolution. But the American model ensures that revolutions only mask manipulation by entrenched elites. Power may change hands, but the establishment endures. The same is true in Britain. The drama conceals the continuity.
Russia, China and India are different. Their governments operate with broad public support, grounded in the conviction that the alternative is national humiliation and dependence on the West. This is why their politics are substantive, not procedural. They are about the survival of statehood itself.
The EU on the defensive
The erosion of mass politics means that coups, revolutions or great popular wars are unlikely in the strongest states. What remains is the steady rivalry of elites, played out in summits, speeches and sanctions. The only significant risk is institutional collapse in countries that still possess the power to cause damage. Westerm Europe, divided and over-militarised, is the prime candidate.
Russia’s own position is better. Its struggle to return to the top table is the direct consequence of how the Soviet Union collapsed and how the West exploited that defeat. Today’s policies – from military action to economic reorientation – are part of that long arc. China’s trajectory is similar: ideas imported from Europe a century ago became the foundation of modern strength.
The lesson is clear. The West once relied on masses in the street. Now it relies on bureaucracies issuing statements few take seriously. Russia, China and India base their legitimacy on broad public consensus around sovereignty and independence.
The end of mass politics
History’s great transformations – the Reformation, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution – were born of big ideas and mass movements. Today, that energy is absent. The international system is shaped by states and their leaders, not by peoples.
This is not a reason for despair. In fact, it may be a blessing. Without big ideas to mobilise millions, the likelihood of truly big wars is smaller. The danger lies instead in bureaucratic mismanagement, in institutional collapse, in leaders who mistake procedure for substance.
World politics has entered an age of monotony. It may survive this transition if today’s leaders understand that their task is not to raise crowds, but to navigate reality with skill and courage. The balance of power rests less on the will of masses than on the talent of those few who now carry the weight of history.
The “ugly rhetoric” pushed by the legacy media has led to the escalation of internal strife in the US, the former Senate aide has said
Left-wing politicians and mainstream media bear some of the responsibility for the murder of American activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday, RT contributor and former US Senate aide Tara Reade has claimed. She cited dehumanizing narratives toward conservatives that have been all too common in recent years.
Speaking to RT on Thursday, Reade recounted how she had twice been invited to Kirk’s show, describing the political activist as a “very educated” and “genuine” person.
“I think that the liberals have been really tone-deaf,” Reade said, citing the insensitive comments made by MSNBC contributor Matthew Dowd in the wake of the shooting at Utah Valley University.
Dowd suggested that the murder may have been accidentally caused by a “supporter shooting their gun off in celebration.” He further claimed that the 31-year-old influencer had brought the tragedy upon himself with his “hateful words.”
MSNBC President Rebecca Kutler later issued a formal apology.
Reade spoke of the “ugly” rhetoric pushed by liberal media outlets, claiming that they have “incited violence against” herself personally, along with prominent conservative journalist Tucker Carlson, billionaire Elon Musk, who supported Donald Trump during his presidential campaign in 2024, and the US leader himself. The RT contributor cited the failed assassination attempt on Trump last July in Pennsylvania as an example.
“They have a responsibility for the kind of language they use, and the way they stir up the anger of the left base,” Reade said.
“We’re watching the United States break down, the fabric of it break down,” she claimed, warning that the political divide in the country has by now grown into a ”chasm.” Reade also predicted that ”there’s going to be more unrest and probably more violence, unfortunately.”
As for the immediate ramifications of Kirk’s murder for American society, the former US Senate aide told RT that it would likely have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, as many would refrain from voicing their opinions in public out of fear for their life.
Moscow has framed the move as a reciprocal step after Beijing eased rules for Russians
Russia has begun the process of lifting visa requirements for Chinese citizens, a senior official has announced.
Nikita Kondratyev, head of the Department for Multilateral Economic Cooperation and Special Projects at the Economic Development Ministry, said on Wednesday that government agencies were already implementing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s directive to lift entry restrictions.
It mirrors Beijing’s recent decision to grant visa-free entry to Russian citizens, announced at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s summit last week. Soon afterward, Putin announced Russia would reciprocate at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, describing the move as aimed at strengthening economic cooperation and cultural ties.
“The decision must be carried out, and all agencies have already begun this important work,” Kondratyev said. He added that the ministry had long been working to adapt Russia’s tourism offerings for Chinese travelers, citing the expansion of electronic visas and group visa-free travel programs.
Kondratyev said many people had asked about the potential for inbound travel, and Russia had previously set a target of 16 million foreign visitors by 2030. Since the visa-free announcement, Moscow has set a goal of attracting 5.7 million Chinese tourists alone by that date.
China’s visa waiver for Russians will begin on September 15 on a one-year trial basis. It will apply to holders of ordinary passports, who may stay up to 30 days for business, tourism, personal visits, exchanges, or transit.
A bilateral agreement already allows visa-free entry for organized Chinese tour groups of five to 50 people through accredited operators.
Tourism between the two countries has been rising steadily. Russians made about three million trips to China in 2024, with numbers expected to grow further as new travel rules take effect.
The Israeli prime minister’s statements are a “shameful” bid to justify the Jewish state’s missile strike on Doha, the country’s foreign ministry has said
Qatar has condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his “reckless” comparison of West Jerusalem’s missile attack on its capital Doha with the US response to the 9/11 atrocity.
Speaking in English on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary, Netanyahu cited America’s pursuit of al Qaeda to justify the missiles strike on Doha. Governments “cannot harbor terrorists,” he claimed, adding: “Yesterday, we acted along those lines. We went after the terrorist masterminds who committed the October 7th massacre.”
Qatar’s foreign ministry said Netanyahu’s remarks were a “shameful attempt” to justify Tuesday’s missile strike which killed several Hamas officials and a Qatari security guard, sent plumes of smoke over the capital and triggered panic among residents.
Qatar has played a central mediating role between Hamas and Israel since the Gaza war began.
“Netanyahu is fully aware that the hosting of the Hamas office took place within the framework of Qatar’s mediation efforts requested by the United States and Israel,” the ministry said.
Netanyahu made a “false comparison” and offered a “miserable justification” for Israel’s “treacherous practices,” it added, claiming that unlike with Hamas, there had been “no international mediation involving an al-Qaeda negotiating delegation” with which Washington could engage “to bring peace to the region.”
Russia also condemned Israel’s strike on Doha as a violation of international law and the UN Charter, saying it undermines efforts to reach a peaceful settlement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Thursday the attack showed Israel’s “unwillingness to end the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza and displayed “particular cynicism” given Qatar’s role as a key mediator.
Some social media users have praised the killing of the conservative American, who was sharply critical of the government in Kiev
Ukrainian social media users have openly celebrated the assassination of conservative American activist Charlie Kirk.
Kirk, a prominent critic of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and of former US President Joe Biden’s push to send hundreds of billions of dollars of military aid to Kiev, was shot in the neck on Wednesday during a public campus event in Orem, Utah.
Though mainstream Ukrainian media reported the killing in a largely neutral tone, providing basic facts and noting Kirk’s criticisms of Kiev, numerous online posts from accounts with Ukrainian names expressed approval and even delight.
“Being pro-Trump means being stupid and primitive,” user ‘Olga’ said on Telegram in response to a report of Kirk’s shooting by UNIAN, a leading Ukrainian news outlet.
“Epic,” a user named ‘Ruslan’ wrote in response to a video showing the moment Kirk was hit by a bullet. Another commenter, ‘Volodya Yanik’, said: “Cool. Super shot.”
“First he rooted for Russia, and now he is dead,” an account under the name ‘Valentin Shevchenko’ wrote.
Some of the celebratory remarks were later removed by UNIAN administrators.
Similar reactions spread across other Ukrainian outlets, with commenters insisting Kirk “f**ked around and found out” and wishing for him to “rest in pieces.”
Kirk had called Zelensky an “international welfare queen” and an “ungrateful petulant child who is responsible for 1 million dead,” citing Zelensky’s refusal to consider a peace deal with Russia and his continuation of a conflict financed by Western money.
The increasing drive for censorship has created a “poisonous environment” in America, the political commentator told RT
The assassination of a political speaker you disagree with is antithetical to American values, making Charlie Kirk’s murder a grave signal for US society, former Marine Corps intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter told RT.
The founder of the conservative student group Turning Point USA was shot dead Wednesday at Utah Valley University by a gunman firing from a nearby rooftop. Kirk was famous for his public debates on hot-button topics, such as transgender issues or US support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.
Apparently motivated by politics, the crime shows that constitutionally protected free speech in America “is no longer free,” and that some words can be met with violence rather than counterarguments, Ritter said.
“In the battleground of ideas, the solution to somebody’s bad ideas isn’t to shoot the person,” he said. “The last thing you do is silence Charlie Kirk by shooting Charlie Kirk.”
Ritter blamed the US government for increasingly embracing censorship of speech it considers inconvenient and for enabling intimidation by activists. He said he has personally faced harassment over his public statements, including online death threats aimed at him and his family.
“We have a poisonous environment today on social media, on the mainstream media, and in society in general, where people are physically threatened because of the words they speak,” he said.
“It’s OK to be offended by people’s speech,” Ritter added. “What is not okay is to demonize people to the extent that [you argue] America would be better off without these ideas being articulated.”
The gunman shot Kirk at a publicly accessible venue. Ritter warned that the attack could discourage US campuses from hosting controversial speakers since many universities cannot afford the level of security needed to prevent such violence.
The negotiations hinge on Moscow’s territorial claims and Kiev’s push for security guarantees, the US vice president has said
Talks on resolving the conflict between Russia and Ukraine have been narrowed to two major sticking points, centering on territorial issues and security guarantees, US Vice President J.D. Vance said on Tuesday.
Moscow has called for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict but warned it will continue military action until the root causes are addressed. It insists that a settlement must include Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions, which joined Russia following referendums, as Russian territory.
In an interview with One America News Network, Vance said talks to end the conflict have “at least narrowed it to a couple of core issues.”
“One issue is territorial,” Vance stated, adding: “The Russians want about 6,000 or so square kilometers that they have not yet conquered through military force. That’s what the Russians want.”
Vance said Ukraine, for its part, is pressing for security guarantees “whether from the Europeans or somebody else.” He added: “They want confidence that if they cut a deal, the Russians aren’t going to come back in a few months or a few years asking for more.”
Russia has long stressed it has no intention of occupying Ukraine in full. President Vladimir Putin reiterated this when the conflict escalated in 2022, and again later when Russian troops reached Kiev but then withdrew.
Vance said negotiations have made “incredible progress,” but the key question is whether “the Russians and the Ukrainians are going to walk through that door of peace.”“We continue to work hard at it,” he added.
“And I do think that eventually you’re going to come to a peaceful settlement. The question really is whether it lasts another year or another month, whether you have another 100,000 or another million, God forbid, people die in the process.”
Last week, Putin struck a cautiously optimistic note about the prospects for peace, saying “there is light at the end of the tunnel” given the US shift to mediation.
Putin and US President Donald Trump met in Alaska last month. Although the summit produced no breakthroughs, both sides described it as a positive step.
Are you required to move your home-based business while simultaneously relocating your family to a new house? This situation presents a dual challenge, especially if your business is transitioning to a commercial space during your family’s move. To tackle this effectively, it’s essential to develop two separate relocation plans. Budget Start by establishing your relocation […]
The conservative US activist and fiery critic of Zelensky was fatally shot during a public event in Utah
Slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk had claimed he received death threats on a daily basis for speaking out on issues including Washington’s funding of the Ukraine conflict. At least one assassination threat from a Ukrainian spokesperson could have targeted him personally, he reportedly said.
In 2023, Kiev’s Center for Countering Disinformation accused Kirk of “spreading Russian propaganda.” The following year, the Ukrainian media outlet Texty.org.ua placed Kirk and TPUSA on a blacklist of 386 individuals and 76 organizations in the United States that opposed funding for Ukraine.
Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, a US transgender woman and ex-head of the Ukrainian Territorial Defense’s English-language propaganda, vowed to “hunt down” those she called “Kremlin propagandists,” adding that a strike against an individual favored by Russian President Vladimir Putin was imminent.
.@charliekirk11 on Volodymyr Zelenskyy: "The gangster is coming back to extort more American politicians to try to get us further into a no-win war." pic.twitter.com/AF53AP67rB
“Are they going to murder, or try to murder Steve Bannon or Tucker Carlson, or myself?” Kirk asked in response, referencing other conservative American media personalities.
“None of us are Putin puppets or Russian propagandists, but The New York Times calls us that, Twitter calls us that,” Kirk said on his show. “And that person, who is funded by the US Treasury, says: we are gonna come murder you.”
Whether the US government was paying Ashton-Cirillo became a point of public debate in the country after her statement went viral. She was swiftly removed from the Ukrainian forces.
Kirk has remained a persistent critic of Zelensky, whom he labeled “an ungrateful, petulant child,” a “go-go dancer” undeserving of a single US tax dollar, and “a puppet of the CIA who marched his own people into a needless slaughter.”
The US president has promised to “find each and every one” behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk and other attacks
President Donald Trump has vowed to pursue not only the assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk but also those he accused of funding and fueling “radical left” political violence across the United States.
In a video statement posted Wednesday night on Truth Social, Trump described Kirk, 31, as a “patriot” and a “martyr for truth and freedom,” praising him for inspiring young Americans through debates on college campuses nationwide.
“Charlie was the best of America, and the monster who attacked him was attacking our whole country,” Trump said. “An assassin tried to silence him with a bullet, but he failed, because together we will ensure that his voice, his message, and his legacy will live on for countless generations to come.”
President Trump shares a message on the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
“I ask all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived & died. The values of free speech, citizenship, the rule of law & the patriotic devotion & love of God.” pic.twitter.com/3fBSgs4Zxa
The president linked Kirk’s murder to the rhetoric used by the left, warning that “violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year.”
“For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today. And it must stop right now,” Trump declared.
He promised to use the full weight of his administration to investigate not only perpetrators but also “the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”
Trump cited other incidents he attributed to left-wing extremism, including the 2024 assassination attempt against him in Butler, Pennsylvania, the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise in 2017, attacks on ICE agents, and the recent killing of a healthcare executive in New York.
“This is a dark moment for America,” Trump said, urging unity around “the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died – the values of free speech, citizenship, the rule of law, and patriotic devotion and love of God.”
