Our world is getting used to waiting anxiously on its top leaders’ directions in a way it hasn’t experienced for 35 years—since Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, assisted by Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, closed off the Cold War.

Geopolitical risk has risen to become a major factor in guiding global investment patterns.

Originally, ESG referred to the environmental, social and governance factors dominating decision-making, especially for business. Today, the initials stand more for energy, security and geostrategy, according to Oliver Hartwich, executive director of the New Zealand Initiative think tank, citing Rene van Vlerken, chief executive of finance company Euronext Amsterdam.

Risk analysts have risen rapidly to become irreplaceable consultants to large organisations.

In part, that’s because while there remains a strong thread of predictability in the geopolitical leanings of corporate, academic, strategic and other elites, we’re less sure of where our most powerful politicians will seek to lead us next, and thus where contention might erupt.

The autocratic and totalitarian big bros are exceptions to this uncertainty.

China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Iran’s Ali Khamenei and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, for the most part, tell their own people what to do explicitly. They enforce that unhesitatingly and increasingly seek to spread that circle of compliant responsiveness to neighbours and beyond.

In mid-August, delegates at the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Adelaide were as agreed as ever on the importance of the relationship between Australia and the United States.

There were no motions or votes, but most delegates were clearly determined supporters of the defence alliance and its extension through AUKUS, with new pillars being nominated for space collaboration and for critical minerals extraction and processing.

Deterrence—focused chiefly on China’s ambitions—emerged, inevitably, as a major thread in defining the security arena and other fierce challenges beyond. But deterrence is yet to succeed denial as the guiding strategic principle.

The dialogue featured key actors from both countries, close to the pinnacles of power. It included thought and policy-framing leaders. They could provide assurances about continuity, common threads, meeting challenges together and even priorities—to a degree.

But there’s leadership, and there are the leaders—where are US President Donald Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese taking us next?

That remained, as the delegates flew back across the world, or across Australia, a big unanswered question. It will stay unanswerable until the two top leaders choose to make their plays, since they enjoy considerable mandates and make all the core decisions personally.

Of course, Trump is famously far more unpredictable than Albanese. But following Albanese’s six-day visit to China in July, and noting his lack of a meeting with Trump, questions are being asked as to whether the Australian government—and thus Australia—is easing slowly away from the US, while trimming slightly closer to China.

For instance, Albanese stressed that ‘Australia makes our decisions as a sovereign nation’ and was not beholden to the US in determining whether to recognise Palestinian statehood. Logically, this formula could extend to decisions to work more closely with Taiwan and not be so beholden to China’s position. At this stage, however, that decision seems unlikely.

It is important for both countries to treasure and argue for values as well as interests. Trump’s values beyond MAGA are elusive. Albanese does talk values, but more commonly around issues relating to Ukraine or Palestine, for example, than about China.

This is an area where, intriguingly, political priorities in Western countries have in recent times changed places, leaving aside the elusive realpolitik clan. Today, in broad terms and especially in regional considerations, the left tends to focus more on interests, while the right focuses on values.

Each of us—the US and Australia—needs to be clear about the values we espouse. This is especially true for essential freedoms, governance accountability, rule of law and universal rights. We need to lead international discourse supporting pursuit of these values everywhere.

Ideally, in my view, top leaders best operate as team leaders—listening, assessing, choosing and implementing.

In ancient China, the perhaps-mythical philosopher Laozi said, ‘A leader is best when people barely know he exists. When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.’ Appropriately, we don’t really know whether Laozi existed.

In such a formula, citizens may opt to take on responsibility themselves through their communities, relationships and involvements. They may urge governments to pursue the right path, rather than waiting and wondering nervously on the president’s next social media post or an artfully ambiguous statement from the prime minister.