Trend · rank 36 of 250

Middle-power diplomatic leverage

India, the Gulf states, Türkiye, Brazil, Indonesia and others are diversifying their partnerships across the great powers rather than aligning with one, gaining negotiating weight over rules, access and investment.

Information & InfluenceDiplomacy & influencegeoeconomicspoliticsinstitutions

Second pass: Carried forward from the first pass, where it was Rise of middle powers. Held by all three panel models.

Sensitivity and network position

Rank
36of 250
Sensitivity
13.3rank 58
Breadth
1of 20 scenarios High or above
PageRank
50.8rank 44
Eigenvector
20.7
Betweenness
41.2
Links
16trends at Moderate similarity or above
Composite
35.7

Attention over three years

How much this trend is read about on Wikipedia and searched for on Google, week by week, set against the typical trend in the list so that what moves every trend at once is taken out. 100 is this trend's own three-year average. The score measures public attention, which is not the same as the strength of the force: a trend can deepen unnoticed, and a news event can lift attention for a fortnight.

Share of attention
0.09%rank 195 of 250 · a year earlier 0.08%
Now
117
Over a year
+32%Rising
Over three years
+35%
Peak
20818 Jan 2026
Sources
Bothagreement 0.79
Coverage
13languages · 59 nations

Trailing 4-week average. 100 is this trend’s three-year average.

By language

Wikipedia reading in each language edition where the trend’s pages are read enough to measure (13 of 28). Share is of all the readers counted.

LanguageShareNowOver a yearThree years
English69%99+2%
Persian6%76−11%
Japanese6%111+25%
Spanish4%92+13%
Chinese4%1100%
Arabic2%150+88%
German2%97+11%
Portuguese2%111+18%
Italian1%130+27%
Turkish1%143+57%
French1%123+38%
Vietnamese1%143+32%
Thai1%140+59%

By country

Google search interest over the three years, as a share of each country’s searching. 100 is the nation where interest is highest. The search terms are English, which favours countries that search in English.

The 12 highest of 59 nations with a reading. All countries (CSV).

By region and G20 member

Attention to this trend inside each place, from Google searches made in its countries and Wikipedia reading in the languages mostly read there, averaged where both exist. Each line compares the trend with its own past in that place; the lines do not compare places.

Regions

PlaceRead fromNow90 days1 year3 yearsThree years
North AmericaGoogle in 1 country + Wikipedia in English105+5%+19%+9%
EuropeGoogle in 4 countries + Wikipedia in German, French, Italian101+10%+9%−10%
Indo-PacificGoogle in 4 countries + Wikipedia in Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai100+2%−3%−1%
South AsiaGoogle in 1 country139+17%+7%+166%
Gulf and Middle EastWikipedia in Persian, Arabic, Turkish112+2%+32%+24%
Latin America and CaribbeanGoogle in 6 countries + Wikipedia in Spanish, Portuguese96+7%−4%−11%

G20 members

PlaceRead fromNow90 days1 year3 yearsThree years
ArgentinaGoogle83+14%−23%−24%
BrazilGoogle + Wikipedia in Portuguese112+7%+5%+26%
FranceGoogle + Wikipedia in French100+13%+15%−11%
GermanyGoogle + Wikipedia in German79−16%−14%−32%
IndiaGoogle139+17%+7%+166%
IndonesiaGoogle70−17%−25%−44%
ItalyGoogle + Wikipedia in Italian136+32%+35%+52%
JapanGoogle + Wikipedia in Japanese107+13%+16%−3%
South KoreaGoogle90+189%−41%−13%
MexicoGoogle86+44%−22%−33%
TürkiyeWikipedia in Turkish143−9%+57%+70%
United StatesGoogle + Wikipedia in English105+5%+19%+9%

Share of attention by region

GINC Share of Attention: this trend's share of all the public attention the trends in the list draw, worldwide and in each region, week by week (a 4-week average). Each place is read from the Wikipedia languages mostly read there and Google searching in its countries; where a place's language is shared with others, as English is, Google stands alone.

PlaceShare, last 13 weeksRank thereA year earlierRead from
World0.09%195 of 2500.08%Wikipedia reading in all 28 languages, and Google searching worldwide
Asia Pacific0.13%170 of 2500.11%Wikipedia reading in the region's own languages, not English; Google searching in 15 countries, not China
Europe0.04%230 of 2500.05%German, French, Italian, Polish, Dutch and Swedish reading; Google searching in 10 countries, the UK among them
Africa0.02%208 of 2500.04%Google searching in 7 countries; Afrikaans and Swahili reading reaches too few trends to count
South America0.09%192 of 2500.08%Spanish and Portuguese reading, Spanish also read in Spain; Google searching in 5 countries
North America0.04%201 of 2490.04%Google searching in the United States, Canada and Mexico; English reading cannot be split by country
Oceania0.03%201 of 2490.03%Google searching in Australia and New Zealand; English reading cannot be split by country
United States0.02%209 of 2490.03%Google searching; English reading cannot be split by country
United Kingdom0.02%206 of 2490.02%Google searching; English reading cannot be split by country
India0.06%144 of 2490.03%Google searching; Hindi, Bengali and Tamil reading reaches too few trends to count, and English cannot be split by country
China···Wikipedia and Google are blocked in China; no open source counts reading there
Russia···Not read here. Russian reading, which is also done across the former Soviet states; Google's figures for Russia cannot be bought
Japan0.19%140 of 2500.16%Japanese reading and Google searching
Germany0.05%219 of 2500.06%German reading and Google searching
France0.03%230 of 2500.03%French reading, also done in Africa and Canada, and Google searching
Italy0.11%155 of 2500.14%Italian reading and Google searching
South Korea0.09%167 of 2500.09%Korean reading and Google searching
Indonesia0.04%179 of 2500.04%Google searching; Indonesian reading reaches too few trends to count
Brazil0.04%211 of 2500.03%Portuguese reading and Google searching
Türkiye0.00%229 of 2500.00%Google searching; Turkish reading reaches too few trends to count

Relation to each scenario

A trend relates to a scenario when it changes how likely the scenario is, how hard it lands, or is itself sharply changed by it. Each score is the median of three scores given separately by the members of the model panel.

RelationScenarioFamily
4 · HighA verified Middle East settlement restores access S14 ↗Geopolitical and security
3 · ModerateA cross-regional market access compact redirects investment S12 ↗Economic and trade
3 · ModerateA great-power agreement lowers economic security barriers S13 ↗Geopolitical and security
2 · LowCritical trade divides into rival blocs S01Economic and trade
2 · LowA regional war closes a globally important sea route S03Geopolitical and security
1 · Very lowTwo breadbasket failures trigger a food availability crisis S06Energy, climate and resources
1 · Very lowA creditor agreement releases fiscal capacity S11 ↗Economic and trade
0 · Not relatedA global funding seizure reaches sovereign balance sheets S02Economic and trade
0 · Not relatedHybrid coercion ends in an infrastructure blackout S04Geopolitical and security
0 · Not relatedA disputed transfer of power breaks effective government S05Geopolitical and security
0 · Not relatedA major disaster disables the national economic core S07Energy, climate and resources
0 · Not relatedAn AI deployment step causes abrupt labour displacement S08Technology and infrastructure
0 · Not relatedA cryptographic breakthrough invalidates digital trust S09Technology and infrastructure
0 · Not relatedA novel respiratory pathogen exceeds health surge capacity S10Health
0 · Not relatedCheap firm clean power becomes available at scale S15 ↗Energy, climate and resources
0 · Not relatedA validated farming package raises water-efficient output S16 ↗Energy, climate and resources
0 · Not relatedAI-directed research produces a reproducible discovery step S17 ↗Technology and infrastructure
0 · Not relatedA public service platform reaches inclusive operation S18 ↗Technology and infrastructure
0 · Not relatedAffordable preventive treatments reduce chronic illness S19 ↗Health
0 · Not relatedA live outbreak proves rapid distributed pandemic defence S20 ↗Health

Similarity = 0.3 × shared tags (Jaccard) + 0.3 × likeness of scenario profiles (cosine) + 0.3 × likeness of names and descriptions (TF-IDF cosine) + 0.1 if in the same capability domain, cut into seven levels at 0.12, 0.22, 0.33, 0.45, 0.58, 0.72. Shown at Moderate and above.

SimilarityTrendThemeRank
5 · Very highDiplomatic capacity under strainDiplomacy & influence16
5 · Very highCredibility of external commitmentsDiplomacy & influence65
5 · Very highWeakening multilateral institutionsDiplomacy & influence77
4 · HighDevelopment finance as influenceDiplomacy & influence63
4 · HighGlobal South coalitionsDiplomacy & influence72
4 · HighSoft power & cultural influenceDiplomacy & influence234
3 · ModerateRule of law & judicial independenceState capacity & governance3
3 · ModerateRegulatory capture & lobbying powerState capacity & governance8
3 · ModerateExport controls & economic coercionTrade, industry & supply chains34
3 · ModerateTrade corridor competitionTrade, industry & supply chains38
3 · ModerateTechnical standards competitionDiplomacy & influence50
3 · ModerateTariff barrier normalisationTrade, industry & supply chains58
3 · ModerateAlliance realignment & burden-shiftingConflict & security62
3 · ModerateResearch security & science decouplingDiplomacy & influence113
3 · ModerateAsylum & migration system strainState capacity & governance115
3 · ModerateInternational student flowsDiplomacy & influence227