The realities of today starkly mirror the Walls scenario. In the RESPACE scenarios, Walls depicts a world of nationalist power plays, weakened institutions and rising conflict – exactly what we see as countries flout global rules. The retreat of the United States from the UN Human Rights Council and other UN agencies exemplifies the inward my-country-first mindset driving this shift. Similarly, the assertive moves of Russia and China to carve out spheres of influence – from Ukraine to the South China Sea – reflect a Walls-like landscape in which might trumps right and multilateral bodies are sidelined. We are effectively living through the downside of Walls: a multipolar free-for-all in which each bloc pursues its own interests, and international law is dishonoured in the breach. UN’s inability to stop wars in Ukraine or Gaza despite horrific civilian tolls underscores how, in a Walls world, even gross violations of the UN Charter go unpunished. This fragmentation and drift toward every nation for itself is eroding the cooperative norms upon which peace and human rights have often depended.

In contrast, the current trajectory is the inverse of a Maze scenario. Maze envisions states reinvesting in multilateral cooperation and reforming global institutions to meet modern challenges. We did see a glimpse of Maze in the Pact for the Future – a pledge by all UN members to strengthen a rules-based, inclusive order. Those lofty promises have not translated into action, however. Instead of reinforcing the maze of international institutions to solve problems, key players are abandoning or attacking them. For example, Maze implies empowering the UN and international courts to address conflicts, whereas in reality the major global powers are actively undermining these bodies – from the United States shrugging off UN human rights mechanisms to Russia ignoring International Criminal Court warrants. The contrast highlights a missed opportunity. If world leaders implemented the cooperative spirit of Maze, the crises we face – wars, pandemics, climate change – could be tackled collectively. Instead, dismantling the rules-based system is making global problem-solving ever more elusive.

Elements of a Towers scenario are also emerging but in a distorted form. Towers imagines a future in which regional blocs and powers take on greater responsibility for peace and development, potentially filling gaps left by a waning UN. We do see rising regionalism: the BRICS+ expansion and other Global South alliances can be viewed as new towers of influence. Likewise, organisations such as the African Union and ASEAN have tried to mediate conflicts in their regions when global diplomacy falters. In a positive Towers sense, one might hope these regional efforts will cooperate to uphold international norms. What is unfolding, however, is more competitive than cooperative – quasi-blocs forming East and West, and even regional groupings becoming arenas for rivalry. For instance, the idea of the Global South uniting to reform global governance has promise (for example, calls for more UN Security Council seats for Africa and new development banks) but this risks splitting the world into separate camps if it is framed as South versus North. The Towers scenario’s hopeful vision of complementary regional problem-solving is only partly visible. More often, there are patchwork responses or power vacuums. A clear example is peacekeeping. If the UN cannot act in a conflict setting, ideally regional coalitions step in (as Towers predicts) but in places such as the Middle East or Eastern Europe, no effective regional peace mechanism has emerged, leaving conflicts to fester. In short, although some towers are rising, without coordination they may further fragment the international landscape rather than stabilise it.

Finally, world turmoil also tests the potential of a Bridges scenario. Bridges foresees empowered grassroots networks and civil society bridging divides when states fail. In the current context, as governments step back from global commitments, bottom–up initiatives have tried to fill the void. Humanitarian NGOs, city networks, youth climate strikers and transnational activist campaigns are working across borders to address issues such as climate action, human rights and peacebuilding. Notably, when the United States pulled funding from agencies such as UNRWA, local and civil society actors scrambled to try to prevent a humanitarian collapse. This self-reliance and solidarity speak to a Bridges ethos. Communities and NGOs cooperating internationally when states will not. The digital age also enables people’s diplomacy – from global petitions to crowdfunding for disaster relief – reflecting an attempt to build bridges over walls. While these efforts are heartening, they face immense obstacles without state support. It is hard for NGOs to replace entire peacekeeping missions or for youth activists to enforce climate agreements without government buy-in. The current reality is still far from a true Bridges world. Civic space is shrinking in many countries and activists often find themselves under attack by the very nationalist forces ascendant in the Walls trend. If there is hope, it lies in these emergent networks of cities, citizens and civil society that continue to uphold cooperation and empathy across borders. They may be the scaffolding that prevents the complete collapse of international collaboration, keeping alive the idea – however faint – that a more Bridges-like global community could yet emerge from the current chaos.