"International affairs are increasingly determined by large and powerful organizations rather than governments." Verdict: True, such as the rise of the Islamic State. On the other hand, there is also a new cadre of actors that cross the line between private actors and the state such as the Chinese hackers suspected of stealing information about millions of U.S. government employees, and the possibly-not-North Korean hackers who took down Sony last year.
Does the author of this "true" assessment understand the definition of "state?" The rise of the Islamic State which now governs huge chunks of Syria and Iraq is a fulfillment of a prediction that non-state actors rather than governments will determine affairs?
The Islamic State claims to be a new government--the caliphate--that they will rule and expand. In what way is this a reduced impact of governments rather than a bunch of nutballs seeking to be a government?
And even if this is an example, it is a tiny example in a huge world of governments determining international affairs.
Also, Chinese hackers are a tool of the Chinese government merely a bit removed from the state to avoid formal responsibility.
How is this a "true" prediction in any interpretation?
Sorry. I hoped to comment on the rest, but I couldn't recover from the effort for this first one. So you get only one.
