In this Intelligence Brief, JB Shreve reviews the current status of the war and potential issues, escalations, distractions, and realities we may encounter in the days and weeks ahead. Understanding the reality behind the headlines through this Intelligence Brief may give you the advantage to keep your head when all about you are losing theirs.
This Intelligence Brief is available exclusively to our Patreon supporters of JB Shreve & the End of History. You can gain access here>>
This final session in our How the World Works course on International Relations explores the deep biblical contrast between Babylon and the Kingdom of God, tracing the narrative from Genesis to Revelation. Babylon represents humanity’s pursuit of self-interest, power, and unity apart from God, beginning with Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. In Genesis 11, people sought to “make a name for themselves,” symbolizing the world system built on pride and human strength. God disrupted their unity to prevent self-destruction, scattering the nations and setting the stage for His alternative plan.
That plan unfolds through Abraham, whom God called to form a new nation rooted in trust and obedience. Unlike Babylon, the Kingdom of God is built on covenant, culture, and faith. Israel’s story—through the Exodus, the law, and the prophets—shows both the struggle and promise of living as God’s chosen nation. Though Israel faltered, the New Testament reveals Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s vision, resisting Satan’s offer of worldly kingdoms and commissioning His followers to build a holy nation across the earth.
The script critiques modern optimism, such as Steven Pinker’s claim of declining violence, by highlighting the bloody record of wars, revolutions, and nuclear weapons. Babylon’s spirit persists in global systems, alliances, and technologies that promise progress but often lead to chaos. Revelation portrays Babylon’s ultimate fall, while Revelation 22 offers hope: the river of life and the tree of life for the healing of the nations.
Ultimately, the contrast between Babylon and the Kingdom of God reveals the destiny of human history. Babylon’s self-interest ends in destruction, but God’s Kingdom brings redemption, light, and eternal reign. This message calls readers to discern the difference between worldly systems and God’s eternal nation, choosing hope and trust in His design.
How Believers Should Live in a Global System is the central question explored in this episode of the podcast series. This discussion examines how Christians can navigate the tension between the world’s pursuit of power and self-interest and the Kingdom of God’s call to humility, service, and faith.
The episode reviews the foundations of the international order: sovereign nation-states driven by rational actors, power, and self-interest. Ideologies such as nationalism and patriotism often mask these realities, but history shows that nations act in their own interests—even violently. Against this backdrop, believers face the challenge of living faithfully in a system that often contradicts biblical values.
The podcast highlights three historical approaches Christians have taken: withdrawal from society (monasticism), ignoring the world, or attempting to conquer it through Christian nationalism. Each approach falls short of Christ’s call to be “salt and light.” Augustine’s vision of the City of God versus the City of Man provides a deeper framework: two kingdoms coexisting but ultimately destined for different ends.
Believers are called not to conquer but to influence. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 25 emphasizes that nations will be judged by how they treat “the least of these.” True justice is found not in statecraft but in compassion, hospitality, and care for the vulnerable. History shows that when the church has lived out this calling—abolishing slavery, defending civil rights, protecting children—society has been transformed.
This episode challenges listeners to consider **How Believers Should Live in a Global System**: not by adopting the world’s values, but by embodying the Kingdom of God through service, justice, and love. In doing so, believers can influence nations toward righteousness and hope.
In our latest podcast series, we dive deep into International Relations Case studies to uncover how theories of power, sovereignty, and ideology play out in real-world conflicts. Rather than relying on simplistic narratives of “good guys” and “bad guys,” we explore the mechanics of global politics through three pivotal examples: Pearl Harbor, Ukraine, and Taiwan.
We begin with the past: Japan’s 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Popular memory frames it as irrational aggression, but through the lens of international relations, it was a calculated—though flawed—decision. Japan faced resource scarcity, U.S. sanctions, and the need to secure oil and rubber for survival. The attack reflected rational self-interest, sovereignty concerns, and ideological commitments to empire. Yet Japan miscalculated America’s resolve, turning a regional gamble into global war.
Moving to the present, Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is often portrayed as Vladimir Putin’s reckless ambition. But examined as an International Relations Case study, it reveals rational calculations: resisting NATO expansion, securing energy leverage, and reinforcing national identity. Like Japan, Russia misjudged its adversary, underestimating Ukraine’s resilience and Western unity.
Finally, we look to the future: a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. While often cast as authoritarian pride, international relations theory shows rational motives—control of semiconductor supply chains, breaking U.S. encirclement, and asserting sovereignty. Yet such a move could trigger global economic collapse and even world war.
These International Relations Case studies demonstrate a critical truth: states act as rational actors under pressure, but rationality does not guarantee success. Miscalculations of resolve, ideology, and survival often transform strategic gambles into catastrophic conflicts. By studying these cases, we gain clearer insight into how the world system operates—and why understanding international relations is essential for navigating today’s global challenges.
The debate over whether ideas matter in global politics has long divided scholars of international relations. Realist thinkers, such as John Mearsheimer, argue that material power—military strength and economic capacity—dominates the international system. From this perspective, ideology is secondary, often serving only as a tool to justify power politics. Yet history demonstrates that ideology in international relations is far more than symbolic rhetoric; it actively shapes nations, alliances, and conflicts.
The September 11, 2001, attacks illustrate how ideology in international relations can alter the global order. Nineteen extremists, motivated not by national loyalty but by a radical ideology, reshaped U.S. foreign policy overnight. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the loss of thousands of lives, and the reconfiguration of alliances underscore how ideas can drive material consequences. Ideology in international relations thus becomes a force multiplier, enabling states to mobilize populations, justify wars, and sustain national identity.
Symbols such as flags, slogans, and mottos further reveal the power of ideology. From ancient empires to modern nation-states, banners and patriotic slogans like “Made in the USA” or “Land of the Free” have mobilized citizens and reinforced collective identity. During World War II, propaganda demonized enemies, while in the Cold War, patriotism framed the struggle against communism as a defense of liberty. These examples show how ideology in international relations provides meaning, legitimacy, and emotional cohesion.
Ultimately, ideology in international relations is the lubricant of the global system. It transforms abstract ideas into structured belief systems that guide collective action. Whether through nationalism, patriotism, or cultural narratives, ideology sustains power by shaping perceptions of enemies and allies alike. To understand international relations fully, one must recognize that ideas matter—not as mere decoration, but as the driving force behind global politics.
In the realm of global politics, the guiding principle is clear: nations act in their own self-interest. This realist perspective, championed by figures like Henry Kissinger and Hans Morgenthau, asserts that countries do not have permanent allies or enemies—only strategic goals. Morgenthau’s theory, rooted in power dynamics, reveals that even humanitarian efforts often mask deeper geopolitical motives.
The Marshall Plan, for example, is frequently cited as a humanitarian triumph. Yet its underlying purpose was to contain Soviet influence and stabilize capitalist democracies in post–World War II Europe. This blend of generosity and strategic calculation exemplifies how self-interests and the nations intersect.
Modern examples abound. The U.S. involvement in the Middle East, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and selective humanitarian aid, reflects calculated moves to secure oil routes, counter terrorism, and prevent rival powers like China or Russia from gaining dominance. Similarly, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, while framed as cooperative development, serves its own economic and political expansion.
Even international institutions like the United Nations and agreements like the Paris Climate Accord are shaped by the interests of powerful states. Nations pledge cooperation but often prioritize economic growth and autonomy over global stewardship.
In contrast, the Kingdom of God operates on a radically different foundation: trust in God rather than the pursuit of power. Biblical narratives—from Abraham’s faith to Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount—emphasize self-denial, love for enemies, and reliance on divine provision. This spiritual civilization challenges the norms of worldly governance, offering a transformative vision rooted in faith rather than self-interest.
Understanding self-interests and the nations helps decode global behavior and highlights the stark contrast between worldly power and divine trust. It’s a lens that clarifies headlines and deepens spiritual reflection.
Understanding the role of nations in international relations is essential to grasp how the global system functions. This episode explores the historical development of nations and nation-states, tracing their emergence from tribal and feudal societies to modern sovereign entities. Before the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, political authority was fragmented, and loyalty was personal. Westphalia introduced the principle of sovereignty, laying the foundation for the international system.
The rise of nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries transformed empires and city-states into nation-states. Events like the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution fueled this shift, promoting the idea that the people—not monarchs—should define the state. New nations like Greece, Italy, and Germany emerged, reshaping the global map.
Benedict Anderson’s concept of “imagined communities” highlights that nations are socially constructed. Shared language, media, and rituals create a sense of belonging among people who may never meet. This belief-based identity explains why individuals sacrifice for their nation—it’s a collective faith in an invisible reality.
In international relations, nation-states are the primary actors. Realists view them as power-seeking entities, while constructivists emphasize identity and belief. However, globalization and technology challenge traditional national boundaries, empowering individuals and non-state actors to influence global affairs.
The episode also contrasts earthly nations with the Kingdom of God, which is defined not by borders or ethnicity but by faith and spiritual identity. This theological perspective reframes the role of nations in international relations by highlighting the tension between worldly power and divine purpose.
Ultimately, nations shape diplomacy, conflict, and cooperation. Their role in international relations is both foundational and evolving, driven by belief, identity, and the pursuit of collective meaning.
Here is a link to the book by Benedict Anderson Imagined Communities that we discussed in this session.
