<p>
[quote]
In the next half a century or so, the Middle East will be a bigger player than Russia in terms of oil.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But "the Middle East" is not one country under the control of a single regime. Russia is. Now obviously Russia can't beat UAE or Saudi for reserves, but you have to do a country by country comparison to yield anything interesting. In that case, Russia's proven oil reserves put it in the top 10, right around Venezuela.</p>
<p>Sure, that's not Saudi or Kuwait, but it's no small beans either.</p>
<p>Russia also has a lot better developed capital than any of the Middle Eastern nations have right now (though Iran seems intent on developing). Almost all of the Middle Eastern countries suffer some form of "Dutch disease," and there's far less development of an industrial or service base going on in the region.</p>
<p>China's growth, however, will be interesting. Nonetheless, people seem to forget that China's growth is highly dependent right now on sea lane stability, particularly in the Strait of Malacca. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And depending on how many of the top players will continue with their pacifist (which is good and all, but there comes a time when sitting down and watching things develope without doing anything is just stupid...cough WWII, still happening today) attitude, we might even do away with the UN
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doing away with the UN would probably be the single most stupid thing this world could do. The UN and all of the other post-WWII institutions (like Bretton Woods) have helped create ways for nations to reduce information gaps in communication (in other words, reducing the bounds on rational decision making), institutionalize issues that were otherwise left to the international anarchic order, and give everyone access to tons of information. The UN may not be the answer to the security dilemma, but it offers countries access to a huge database of information on everything ranging from military spending to greenfield investment growth.</p>
<p>The UN may have also helped stop the US and USSR from engaging in more serious conflicts throughout the duration of the Cold War.</p>
<p>So before you talk about "do nothing" countries, consider the fact that the reason that countries can do nothing today is twofold-- 1. The US is a stabilizing hegemonic power that far outstrips anyone else in ability to spend on the military (e.g. many allies can no longer keep up and actually be useful in joint operations), and 2. (and probably more importantly) the institutionalization that the UN has brought us has probably been the MOST important factor in reducing the numbers of interstate wars since the 1940s.</p>