Home › Topics › Seven Lenses Framework
Analytical framework · Version 1.0 · October 2026The Seven Lenses of Geopolitical Power
A standardized framework for analyzing warfare, geopolitics, economic warfare, trade, sanctions, diplomacy, technological competition and the changing balance of global power.
- 7lenses
- 8parts
- 1–5scoring scale
By Peter’s World · Framework version 1.0 · October 2026
Purpose. A standardized framework for analyzing warfare, geopolitics, economic warfare, international trade, sanctions, diplomacy, technological competition, and the changing balance of global power.
The framework is designed to help Peter’s World go beyond reporting what happened and explain why it happened, how power operates, what happens next, and whether the actors involved achieve their objectives.
The central premise. National power is not simply a country’s military size, economic output, or technological sophistication. Power depends on the resources available, the ability to mobilize them, the choices leaders make, the responses of other actors, and the results that follow.
Part I. The seven lenses at a glance
- 1Geography & Strategic PositionThe physical foundations of power.Location, terrain, borders, distance, chokepoints, resources, access, and strategic depth.Read Lens 1
- 2Military & SecurityThe ability to defend, deter, and fight.Military capability, readiness, logistics, defense industry, intelligence, deterrence, and escalation.Read Lens 2
- 3Alliances & Diplomatic NetworksThe power of relationships.Alliances, partnerships, international institutions, coalition cohesion, neutral states, and diplomatic access.Read Lens 3
- 4Economic & Industrial PowerThe resources a country can mobilize.Trade, production, finance, energy, commodities, labor, investment, fiscal capacity, and resilience.Read Lens 4
- 5Technology & Critical InfrastructureThe systems that enable and constrain power.Semiconductors, AI, software, communications, industrial equipment, energy networks, standards, and technical dependencies.Read Lens 5
- 6Domestic Politics & InformationThe decision-making engine.Leadership, regime stability, public opinion, institutions, political incentives, legitimacy, intelligence, and information operations.Read Lens 6
- 7Strategic Leverage & OutcomesThe conversion of capability into results.Coercion, bargaining, retaliation, alternatives, political objectives, adaptation, and strategic success or failure.Read Lens 7
Relationship to the six-lens reports. The daily War Room reports and several site pages currently analyze events through six lenses: Geography, Military, Alliances, Economics, Technology and Power. On the Geopolitics page, the sixth lens is described as who can compel, persuade or block others, including leaders, institutions, domestic politics and international bodies.
The seven-lens framework on this page gives that ground two separate lenses: Domestic Politics & Information and Strategic Leverage & Outcomes, which the framework calls the integrative lens. Its economics and technology lenses are named Economic & Industrial Power and Technology & Critical Infrastructure. The daily reports have not been changed to this format.
Part II. Detailed analytical standards for each lens
Each lens should use the same internal structure:
- Purpose: What dimension of power does it examine?
- Core questions: What must the analyst determine?
- Indicators: What evidence can support the assessment?
- Dependencies and vulnerabilities: What can limit the actor?
- Strategic implications: Why does the analysis matter?
- Forecast: What developments should be watched?
Each lens below shows the elements the framework supplies for it: the analytical objective, areas of analysis, core questions, evidence and indicators, the analytical output and an important distinction. The dependencies, strategic implications and forecast steps of the standard are recorded for each lens when the method in Part III is applied (Step 3).
1Lens 1Geography & Strategic Position
Purpose
Analytical objective: Determine how physical location, terrain, distance, and the distribution of resources shape the options available to each actor.
Areas of analysis
- Terrain and borders: Mountains, plains, deserts, rivers, coastlines, border crossings, and defensible terrain.
- Strategic depth: Distance between potential threats and critical population centers, infrastructure, or government institutions.
- Maritime geography: Sea lanes, ports, canals, straits, naval access, and chokepoints.
- Resource geography: Concentrations of oil, natural gas, minerals, water, agricultural land, and other essential resources.
- Industrial geography: Where manufacturing, logistics hubs, energy production, and specialized suppliers are located.
- Distance and access: How far forces, goods, energy, and information must travel to reach their destinations.
- Alternative routes: Whether an actor can bypass a blocked route, contested region, or restricted supplier.
Core analytical questions
- What geographic advantages does each actor possess?
- Which locations are strategically indispensable?
- Where are the critical bottlenecks?
- What is difficult or expensive to access, defend, supply, or replace?
- How does geography affect the speed and cost of action?
- Can an opponent exploit geographic concentration or isolation?
Evidence and indicators
| Indicator | What it helps establish |
|---|---|
| Distance and transit time | How quickly forces or goods can move |
| Port and shipping capacity | How much commerce or military logistics can flow |
| Route concentration | Exposure to disruption |
| Resource concentration | Dependence on specific locations |
| Infrastructure redundancy | Availability of alternative routes |
| Border and terrain characteristics | Access, defense, and mobility constraints |
Analytical output
Produce a geographic advantage-and-vulnerability assessment. Identify the critical locations, dependencies, and alternative routes that shape the conflict.
2Lens 2Military & Security
Purpose
Analytical objective: Determine what an actor can defend, deter, threaten, disrupt, or sustain under realistic conditions.
Areas of analysis
- Force structure: Personnel, equipment, force composition, and service capabilities.
- Readiness: Training, maintenance, availability, morale, and operational preparedness.
- Force projection: Ability to deploy and sustain capabilities far from home territory.
- Logistics: Fuel, ammunition, transportation, repair, medical support, and replenishment.
- Defense-industrial base: Production capacity, procurement, specialized components, and replacement rates.
- Deterrence: Ability to convince an opponent that aggression would carry unacceptable costs.
- Intelligence and warning: Collection, analysis, surveillance, and awareness of threats.
- Cyber and infrastructure security: Protection of critical military and civilian systems.
- Escalation management: Ability to control the scope and intensity of a confrontation.
Core analytical questions
- What military objectives can each actor realistically accomplish?
- Can it sustain operations over time?
- Which capabilities are difficult to replace?
- What are its logistical and industrial bottlenecks?
- Does it have credible deterrence?
- How might military threats interact with economic or diplomatic pressure?
- What could trigger escalation beyond the original dispute?
Evidence and indicators
| Indicator | What it helps establish |
|---|---|
| Readiness and equipment availability | Deployable capability |
| Ammunition and replacement production | Ability to sustain operations |
| Logistics capacity | Operational endurance |
| Procurement and repair timelines | Recovery from losses |
| Defense import dependence | Exposure to external restrictions |
| Exercises and deployments | Observable posture and signaling |
Analytical output
Assess military capability, readiness, endurance, security dependencies, and escalation risks.
3Lens 3Alliances & Diplomatic Networks
Purpose
Analytical objective: Determine how relationships expand, constrain, or redistribute an actor’s power.
Areas of analysis
- Formal alliances: Treaty obligations, mutual-defense arrangements, and security commitments.
- Strategic partnerships: Intelligence sharing, defense cooperation, and long-term coordination.
- Economic partnerships: Trade agreements, investment relationships, and supply-chain integration.
- Diplomatic coalitions: Coordinated sanctions, statements, negotiations, and international initiatives.
- International institutions: Rules, voting arrangements, dispute mechanisms, and institutional influence.
- Swing states and neutral actors: Countries that may cooperate selectively with competing powers.
- Coalition cohesion: Whether partners agree on objectives, acceptable costs, and the desired end state.
- Diplomatic access: Ability to communicate, negotiate, mediate, and maintain channels during crises.
Core analytical questions
- Who are the actor’s dependable partners?
- What are those partners actually committed to doing?
- Which interests unite the coalition, and which divide it?
- Can an opponent persuade partners to defect or remain neutral?
- Are countries coordinating policy or merely issuing similar public statements?
- Who can mediate a settlement?
- How might the dispute reshape long-term relationships?
Evidence and indicators
- Treaty language and formal commitments
- Joint declarations, votes, and policy announcements
- Coordinated measures and actual implementation
- Trade and investment shifts among partners
- Intelligence-sharing and security cooperation
- Public disagreements and policy exceptions
- Diplomatic visits, negotiations, and agreements
Analytical output
Map the relationship network and assess its reliability, cohesion, capabilities, and vulnerabilities.
4Lens 4Economic & Industrial Power
Purpose
Analytical objective: Determine the material resources an actor can mobilize, the economic dependencies it faces, and its ability to absorb pressure.
Areas of analysis
- Macroeconomic capacity: GDP, productivity, growth, inflation, employment, and fiscal position.
- Trade structure: Imports, exports, trade concentration, market access, and trade balances.
- Industrial capacity: Manufacturing output, production capacity, specialized suppliers, and ability to scale.
- Energy and commodities: Energy security, mineral access, food supplies, and commodity exposure.
- Financial power: Currency use, capital markets, banking relationships, credit, and access to financing.
- Fiscal capacity: Government revenue, borrowing capacity, debt service, and room for subsidies or emergency spending.
- Supply-chain resilience: Inventory, supplier diversity, substitutability, and production flexibility.
- Economic exposure: Dependence on particular export markets, imported inputs, or foreign investment.
- Distributional effects: Which sectors, regions, businesses, and households bear the costs.
Core analytical questions
- What resources can the actor mobilize?
- Which sectors are strategically important?
- What external dependencies could be exploited?
- How quickly can production expand or move?
- Who absorbs the cost of economic disruption?
- How much economic pain can the government tolerate?
- Will pressure weaken the opponent faster than it weakens the initiator?
- Can third countries profit from the disruption?
Evidence and indicators
| Indicator | What it helps establish |
|---|---|
| GDP and industrial output | Economic scale and productive capacity |
| Import concentration | Exposure to foreign suppliers |
| Export-market concentration | Exposure to foreign demand |
| Tariff rates and affected trade values | Direct scope of trade restrictions |
| Inflation and producer prices | Potential domestic cost transmission |
| Investment and capacity utilization | Business response and production adjustments |
| Fiscal position and financing costs | Government capacity to sustain pressure |
| Supplier substitution time | Economic resilience |
Analytical output
Identify the economic winners, losers, dependencies, adjustment costs, and likely endurance of each actor.
5Lens 5Technology & Critical Infrastructure
Purpose
Analytical objective: Determine which technologies and systems create strategic advantages, dependencies, or chokepoints.
Areas of analysis
- Advanced technologies: Semiconductors, artificial intelligence, aerospace, biotechnology, robotics, and advanced materials.
- Digital infrastructure: Telecommunications, cloud services, data centers, and digital platforms.
- Industrial technology: Manufacturing equipment, precision machinery, automation, and specialized components.
- Energy infrastructure: Power generation, transmission, storage, pipelines, and fuel-processing capacity.
- Transport infrastructure: Ports, railways, airports, roads, and logistics systems.
- Technical standards: Patents, certification, interoperability, and standards-setting institutions.
- Research and development: Scientific capacity, talent, innovation, and commercialization.
- Technology controls: Export restrictions, licensing, intellectual property protections, and technology denial.
- Substitution and independence: Time, cost, and technical difficulty of developing alternatives.
Core analytical questions
- Who controls the critical technology?
- Which countries or firms dominate specialized production?
- What technologies are difficult to substitute?
- Can a restriction deny access to an essential capability?
- How long would it take the targeted actor to develop alternatives?
- Could restrictions accelerate domestic innovation or encourage new partnerships?
- Which technologies have both civilian and military applications?
Evidence and indicators
- Market concentration and supplier market shares
- Manufacturing capacity and production yields
- Export-control lists and licensing decisions
- Research spending, patents, and technical publications
- Equipment lead times and replacement costs
- Domestic production milestones
- Dependence on foreign software, components, or standards
Analytical output
Identify technological chokepoints, critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, replacement timelines, and opportunities for technological independence.
6Lens 6Domestic Politics & Information
Purpose
Analytical objective: Explain how political incentives, institutions, beliefs, and information shape what leaders decide and what their societies will tolerate.
This lens is essential because a country is not a single, perfectly coordinated actor. Leaders, military institutions, businesses, political parties, bureaucracies, and the public may have conflicting objectives.
Areas of analysis
- Leadership objectives: Personal, ideological, electoral, institutional, and national goals.
- Regime stability: Institutional strength, elite cohesion, succession risks, and public legitimacy.
- Domestic political constraints: Elections, legislatures, courts, interest groups, and competing parties.
- Public opinion: Popular support, public tolerance for economic costs, and attitudes toward conflict.
- Economic constituencies: Industries, workers, regions, and influential groups that benefit from or oppose policy.
- Information environment: Media ecosystems, censorship, propaganda, public diplomacy, and political messaging.
- Intelligence and uncertainty: What leaders know, what they believe, what remains unknown, and how they interpret evidence.
- Decision-making quality: Bureaucratic competition, groupthink, misperception, institutional incentives, and leadership judgment.
- Legitimacy and narratives: How governments justify their actions domestically and internationally.
Core analytical questions
- What outcome does the leadership actually want?
- What domestic incentives influence its behavior?
- Which groups support or oppose the policy?
- What political costs would make the leadership reconsider?
- Does public rhetoric reflect actual policy, or is it primarily intended to influence an audience?
- What information might leaders be missing or misinterpreting?
- Can the government change course without appearing weak?
- How might elections, protests, elite disputes, or leadership transitions change policy?
Evidence and indicators
| Indicator | What it helps establish |
|---|---|
| Polling and election results | Public attitudes and electoral constraints |
| Legislation and executive decisions | Formal policy authority and action |
| Elite statements and institutional disputes | Internal alignment or division |
| Industry lobbying and business responses | Economic constituencies and political pressure |
| Media restrictions and messaging patterns | Information control and narrative strategy |
| Leadership changes and personnel decisions | Shifts in priorities or institutional influence |
| Observable differences between rhetoric and action | Possible signaling, domestic positioning, or policy inconsistency |
Analytical output
Produce a political sustainability assessment: determine which objectives leaders can pursue, what costs they can tolerate, what constraints they face, and how information or misperception could change their decisions.
7Lens 7Strategic Leverage & Outcomes
Purpose
Analytical objective: Evaluate how actors convert capabilities, relationships, and vulnerabilities into desired political outcomes.
This is the integrative lens. It draws on the first six rather than treating leverage as another independent resource category.
Areas of analysis
- Strategic objectives: The specific behavior, condition, or political result the actor wants to achieve.
- Instruments of power: Military force, diplomacy, sanctions, tariffs, financial restrictions, technology controls, and incentives.
- Asymmetric dependencies: Situations in which one side depends more heavily on the other.
- Bargaining power: Alternatives available if negotiations fail.
- Credibility: Whether threats, promises, and commitments are believable.
- Counter-leverage: The opponent’s ability to retaliate, adapt, or impose costs.
- Escalation management: Whether pressure can be increased or reduced without losing control.
- Adaptation and resilience: How quickly the target finds substitutes or changes its behavior.
- Exit strategies: Conditions for negotiation, de-escalation, settlement, or policy reversal.
- Strategic consequences: Effects on long-term power, reputation, alliances, security, and economic independence.
Core analytical questions
- What is the actual objective—not merely the public justification?
- What instrument is being used, and why was it selected?
- Which vulnerabilities make the instrument effective?
- What can the target do in response?
- Which side has the better alternatives?
- What would count as a meaningful concession?
- Is the desired result achievable at an acceptable cost?
- Does the policy create new vulnerabilities or unintended consequences?
- Who is better positioned after the conflict than before it?
Evidence and indicators
| Indicator | What it helps establish |
|---|---|
| Explicit policy demands | Stated objectives |
| Negotiating positions and concessions | Changes in bargaining behavior |
| Implementation and enforcement | Whether pressure is actually applied |
| Retaliatory measures | Counter-leverage and escalation |
| Policy reversals or modifications | Possible adaptation or compromise |
| Changes in target behavior | Evidence of effectiveness |
| Economic, security, and diplomatic costs | Price paid to obtain the result |
| Long-term dependency and alliance changes | Structural consequences |
Analytical output
Produce an assessment of strategic effectiveness: whether the actor achieved its objectives, at what cost, with what unintended consequences, and whether its position improved or deteriorated.
Part III. The analytical method
The seven lenses define what to investigate. The method below defines how to reach a defensible conclusion.
1Step 1Establish the baseline
Before analyzing a crisis, establish what the situation looked like beforehand.
Document:
- The status quo and relevant historical context
- The interests of the principal actors
- Existing dependencies and relationships
- Previous policies, agreements, and conflicts
- The capabilities and constraints that existed before the triggering event
Without a baseline, it is difficult to determine whether an event represents a meaningful change.
2Step 2Define the actors and their objectives
Identify the principal state and non-state actors, including relevant firms, armed groups, institutions, or intermediaries.
For each major actor, distinguish:
- Stated objectives: What the actor publicly says it wants.
- Inferred objectives: What its behavior suggests it may be seeking.
- Minimum acceptable outcome: What it might accept in a settlement.
- Red lines: Outcomes it appears unwilling to accept.
- Constraints: What prevents it from achieving its preferred result.
Label inferred intentions as assessments, not established facts.
3Step 3Analyze all seven lenses
Apply the same questions to every major actor. Avoid examining one side’s strengths while ignoring its weaknesses, or scrutinizing one side’s claims more rigorously than the other’s.
For each lens, record:
- The relevant facts.
- The main advantages.
- The main vulnerabilities.
- The evidence quality.
- The implications for the current event.
- The developments that could change the assessment.
4Step 4Map dependencies and interactions
Identify where one lens affects another.
For example:
- Geography creates resource concentration.
- Resource concentration creates economic dependency.
- Economic dependency may affect military readiness.
- Technology controls may reshape industrial capacity.
- Alliances may reduce dependency or create new alternatives.
- Domestic politics may limit the willingness to use those advantages.
- Strategic leverage determines whether the resulting capabilities change another actor’s behavior.
Do not assume these relationships are automatic. Establish the causal connection with evidence.
5Step 5Identify the instruments of power
Classify the tools being used:
| Instrument | Examples |
|---|---|
| Military | Deployment, deterrence, force, security assistance |
| Economic | Tariffs, subsidies, sanctions, investment restrictions |
| Financial | Asset freezes, payment restrictions, financing access |
| Technological | Export controls, licensing, research restrictions |
| Diplomatic | Negotiations, coalition-building, recognition, isolation |
| Informational | Public diplomacy, propaganda, strategic messaging |
| Incentive-based | Market access, aid, agreements, security guarantees |
An action may belong to several categories. For instance, an export restriction may serve an economic objective while also seeking a military or technological advantage.
6Step 6Evaluate adaptation and countermeasures
Never analyze only the initiating action.
Ask how each target, ally, competitor, and intermediary can respond. Consider substitution, retaliation, evasion, policy adjustment, and the development of alternative partnerships.
The target’s response may reduce the effectiveness of the original action or create new leverage of its own.
7Step 7Build scenarios
Develop at least three plausible outcomes:
- Baseline: The current trajectory continues.
- Escalation: Pressure, retaliation, or conflict intensifies.
- De-escalation: Negotiation, adaptation, or compromise reduces tensions.
For each scenario, specify the assumptions, causal mechanism, observable indicators, and developments that would make the scenario more or less likely.
8Step 8Evaluate the outcome
Compare the actual result with the original objective and baseline.
Assess:
- Whether the intended behavior changed
- Whether the actor paid an acceptable price
- Whether the opponent adapted successfully
- Whether alliances and dependencies changed
- Whether the result is likely to persist
- Whether the action created unintended costs
A temporary concession and a durable change in strategic behavior are not equivalent outcomes.
Part IV. The scoring and assessment system
We recommend using a standardized scorecard for Peter’s World. It makes analyses easier to compare across countries, conflicts, and time periods.
Important: Scores are structured judgments, not objective measurements of geopolitical power. They should always be accompanied by evidence and a written explanation.
1. Rate each lens
Use a five-point scale for the actor or issue being assessed.
- 1Severely constrainedMajor vulnerabilities or very limited options.
- 2DisadvantagedMeaningful weaknesses; alternatives are costly or limited.
- 3Mixed or contestedMeaningful strengths and weaknesses; outcome depends on circumstances.
- 4AdvantagedStrong position, with manageable vulnerabilities.
- 5Highly advantagedSubstantial advantages and strong alternatives relative to the specific objective.
Insufficient evidence is also an allowed rating, so that no score is forced. See Part VII, “Avoid false precision.”
Use the score to compare an actor’s position relative to a specified opponent, objective, and time horizon. A country could score highly on technology but poorly on domestic political sustainability.
2. Rate evidence confidence separately
- HighMultiple reliable, independent sources or strong primary evidence
- MediumCredible evidence exists, but important uncertainties remain
- LowLimited, indirect, disputed, or uncorroborated evidence
Do not confuse a high capability score with high confidence in the evidence.
3. Track change over time
Record each assessment at a defined date and compare it with previous assessments.
- Improving: The actor’s relative position is strengthening.
- Improving The actor’s relative position is strengthening.
- Stable No meaningful change established.
- Deteriorating The actor’s relative position is weakening.
- Unclear Available evidence does not establish the direction.
A score of 4 that is deteriorating can be more strategically concerning than a score of 3 that is improving.
Part V. Demonstration: analyzing a trade war
The framework should work as a complete analytical system, not merely a list of questions.
Consider a hypothetical dispute in which the United States raises tariffs on Chinese goods and China responds with restrictions on selected critical-mineral exports.
- 1
Geography
- Finding to investigate
- Production of certain minerals or processed materials may be geographically concentrated.
- Evidence needed
- Production and processing shares, alternative suppliers, transport routes, and replacement lead times.
- Implication
- Geographic concentration may create leverage, but only if alternative sources are difficult to access.
- 2
Military & Security
- Finding to investigate
- Restricted materials could affect defense supply chains.
- Evidence needed
- Actual military and industrial uses, inventories, procurement contracts, and substitute materials.
- Implication
- The security effect depends on which inputs are restricted and how quickly they can be replaced.
- 3
Alliances & Diplomacy
- Finding to investigate
- US partners may coordinate alternative supply chains—or pursue separate arrangements with China.
- Evidence needed
- Joint policies, trade agreements, investment commitments, and actual implementation.
- Implication
- Coalition coordination could increase pressure or reduce individual countries’ exposure.
- 4
Economic & Industrial Power
- Finding to investigate
- Tariffs may raise costs for importers, firms, and consumers, while restrictions may disrupt downstream production.
- Evidence needed
- Tariff exposure, prices, production data, employment, trade flows, and investment.
- Implication
- The distribution and duration of economic costs matter more than the headline value of tariffs alone.
- 5
Technology & Infrastructure
- Finding to investigate
- Restrictions may expose dependencies in advanced manufacturing.
- Evidence needed
- Processing capacity, technology ownership, substitution timelines, and domestic production milestones.
- Implication
- Short-term disruption could create an incentive to diversify or accelerate technological independence.
- 6
Domestic Politics & Information
- Finding to investigate
- Both governments may face pressure to maintain a hard line despite economic costs.
- Evidence needed
- Official statements, legislative actions, business responses, public opinion, and actual policy decisions.
- Implication
- Political incentives may prolong a dispute even when compromise could reduce economic damage.
- 7
Strategic Leverage & Outcomes
- Finding to investigate
- Whether either side can compel a policy concession or improve its long-term position.
- Evidence needed
- Negotiating demands, concessions, changes in policy, retaliation, and evidence of adaptation.
- Implication
- The strategic winner is not necessarily the side that inflicts the greatest immediate economic damage.
The resulting strategic assessment
A credible report should finish with five judgments:
- Relative advantage: Which side has the stronger position, and in which areas?
- Critical vulnerability: What dependency or constraint matters most?
- Decisive uncertainty: What unknown could change the assessment?
- Likely trajectory: Is the dispute more likely to escalate, stabilize, or de-escalate?
- Strategic outcome: What would constitute a durable success for each side?
Do not declare a winner before examining the evidence across all seven lenses.
Part VI. The Peter’s World reporting template
Use this repeatable structure for articles, livestreams, briefings, and longer investigations.
Geopolitical Analysis Brief
Standard report structure
- 1The event
What happened? When? Who is involved? What is verified?
- 2The strategic question
What is at stake, and what is each actor trying to achieve?
- 3The seven-lens assessment
Evaluate geography, military and security, alliances and diplomacy, economic and industrial power, technology and infrastructure, domestic politics and information, and strategic leverage and outcomes.
- 4The evidence
Identify primary documents, official statistics, credible reporting, expert assessments, and unresolved factual disputes.
- 5The power balance
Identify each actor’s strengths, vulnerabilities, dependencies, and alternatives.
- 6Scenarios and indicators
Explain the plausible paths forward, the assumptions behind each, and the signals to monitor.
- 7Strategic verdict
State who appears advantaged, what remains uncertain, and what would change the conclusion.
Part VII. Rules for analytical discipline
These rules are essential if Peter’s World is to distinguish itself as a serious geopolitical analysis platform.
- Separate facts from inference. Label verified events, analytical interpretations, and forecasts distinctly.
- Measure outcomes against objectives. Do not treat activity, spending, threats, or damage as proof of success.
- Use comparable data. Check dates, units, definitions, inflation adjustments, and differences in reporting standards.
- Consider alternative explanations. A policy may reflect domestic politics, economic interests, security concerns, or several motives at once.
- Account for the opponent’s response. Every strategy must be analyzed alongside the adaptation it could trigger.
- Avoid false precision. Do not manufacture numerical scores or probabilities when the evidence is inadequate.
- State what would change your mind. Define the evidence that would weaken or overturn your conclusion.
- Reassess over time. A sound analysis is updated when conditions, capabilities, or objectives change.
Part VIII. How to make the framework even more powerful
We recommend treating three cross-cutting dimensions as mandatory checks across every lens rather than adding more lenses.
Time horizon
Examine immediate effects, medium-term adaptation, and long-term structural change. A short-term victory may create a long-term vulnerability.
Relative advantage
Assess each actor against its opponent and stated objective. National power is contextual; a capability useful in one contest may offer little advantage in another.
Feedback and adaptation
Examine how actions change incentives, alliances, production, political support, and future capabilities. Outcomes reshape the conditions for the next round.
The final model
- Sources of power: 1 Geography · 2 Military · 3 Alliances · 4 Economics · 5 Technology
- Political filter: 6 Domestic Politics & Information. Determines how leaders perceive, mobilize, and use their capabilities.
- Strategic result: 7 Leverage & Outcomes. Bargaining power, behavior change, costs, and lasting consequences.
Feedback changes capabilities, relationships, incentives, and the next strategic decision.
Our recommendation: Use these seven lenses as the permanent analytical backbone of Peter’s World. Use the same core questions, evidence standards, and report structure across every subject, while adapting the indicators to the specific event.
The signature principle
- Understand the position.
- Measure the power.
- Examine the incentives.
- Anticipate the response.
- Evaluate the outcome.
How we use it
The framework is the analytical backbone for Peter’s World reporting. These pages show analysis in practice; those that use the six-lens format are noted above in the relationship note.
- War Room reportsDaily reports for six theaters, each ending with a six-lens analysis section.
- Trade War News HubSanctions, tariffs and export controls, where the economic and strategic leverage lenses meet.
- Understanding Global Trade MetricsHow trade statistics map onto the economic lens and show who depends on whom.
- Information War News HubInfluence operations and information, the territory of the domestic politics and information lens.
- GeopoliticsWhere world affairs stand, with the six-lens method applied across theaters.
Frequently asked questions
What are the seven lenses of geopolitical power?
The seven lenses are Geography and Strategic Position; Military and Security; Alliances and Diplomatic Networks; Economic and Industrial Power; Technology and Critical Infrastructure; Domestic Politics and Information; and Strategic Leverage and Outcomes. Lenses 1 to 5 describe the sources of power, lens 6 is the political filter, and lens 7 is the strategic result.
How is the 1 to 5 scoring scale used?
Each lens is rated on a five-point scale for the actor or issue being assessed: 1 severely constrained, 2 disadvantaged, 3 mixed or contested, 4 advantaged and 5 highly advantaged. The score compares an actor’s position with a specified opponent, objective and time horizon. Insufficient evidence is allowed instead of forcing a score, and a score must always be accompanied by evidence and a written explanation.
Why is evidence confidence rated separately from the score?
A high capability score should not be confused with high confidence in the evidence. Confidence is rated High when multiple reliable, independent sources or strong primary evidence exist, Medium when credible evidence exists but important uncertainties remain, and Low when evidence is limited, indirect, disputed or uncorroborated.
Why is Strategic Leverage and Outcomes called the integrative lens?
Lens 7 draws on the first six lenses rather than treating leverage as another independent resource category. It evaluates how actors convert capabilities, relationships and vulnerabilities into desired political outcomes. The framework notes that inflicting pain is not the same as compelling behavior.
What are the three cross-cutting checks?
The framework recommends three checks across every lens instead of adding more lenses: time horizon (immediate effects, medium-term adaptation and long-term structural change), relative advantage (each actor measured against its opponent and stated objective) and feedback and adaptation (how actions change incentives, alliances, production, political support and future capabilities).
Framework version 1.0, October 2026. The trade war in Part V is a hypothetical demonstration, not a report on real events. Scores are structured judgments, not objective measurements of geopolitical power. Featured graphic self-drawn by Peter’s World.
