The post-World War II
international order was built on the foundations of US military and economic
dominance; practically, a largely bi-polar world came into existence, along with the establishment of multilateral institutions like the United Nations, the
Bretton Woods financial system, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) and subsequently, the WARSAW pact creating a counter-pole to
NATO. The breakup of the Soviet Union, led to a uni-polar world with the United
States playing a pivotal positive role in enforcing global trade rules,
maintaining security in strategic regions, and promoting democratic values, as
also saw some negative roles like an unchallenged USA undermining multi-lateral
institutions at the altar of US national interests, like in Iraq and
Afghanistan. However, the rise of China, its executive vision and its implementation
framework under a relatively powerful and determined President Xi; Russia under
Putin, and its growing insecurity on account of NATO’s eastward expansion; its
resurgence and takeover of Crimea in 2014 and growing anti-Russian Ukrainian
leadership and suppression of Russian friendly Donbas region prompted the
invasion of Ukraine. Finally, growing dissatisfaction with the Western model of
globalization have undermined the stability of this system. Trump's return to
power is accelerating this unraveling, as his administration's transactional,
zero-sum approach to diplomacy and trade are a sharp departure from the
cooperative or win-win model of the past. At the heart of this realignment are
the following three interconnected pressures, each reinforcing the others and
contributing to a more unstable global environment:
Geopolitical
Shock
The post-Cold War
"unipolar moment"—in which the United States emerged as the sole
global superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991—is coming to
an end. The rise of new centers of power, the resurgence of military conflicts,
and the fracturing of long-standing alliances are reshaping the global balance
of power.
Russia’s
Challenge to European Security: Russia's
invasion of Ukraine in 2022 marked a turning point in European security. The eastwards
expansion of NATO led to growing insecurity in Russia. The “Maidan Revolution”
in Feb 2014, triggered Russia to annex Crimea in 2014. This demonstrated
Russia's willingness to challenge Western dominance, to secure its lines of communications.
However, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in Feb 2022 shattered the post-Cold
War consensus on European borders. NATO's response—strengthening its military
posture and expanding to include Finland and potentially Sweden—reflects a
renewed focus on collective defense. However, the ongoing conflict has exposed
divisions within the Western alliance, particularly between the US and Europe
on how far to push back against Russian aggression. These divisions have come
into sharp focus with Trump 2.0
China’s
Strategic Ambitions: China's rise as a global economic and military
power represents a fundamental shift in the global order. Under Xi Jinping,
China has pursued an assertive foreign policy, expanding its influence in the
South China Sea, deepening ties with Africa and Latin America through the Belt
and Road Initiative, and challenging US dominance in global trade and
technology. Beijing’s "no-limits" partnership with Moscow and its
military buildup in the Indo-Pacific suggest that China is positioning itself
as a strategic counterweight to the West. However, China’s economic slowdown,
internal political pressures, and increasing global suspicion of its motives
could limit its ability to fully supplant US leadership.
Middle Powers
and Regional Realignments: India, Turkey, Brazil, and
Saudi Arabia are asserting greater autonomy in their foreign policies, seeking
to balance between the US, Europe, China, and Russia. India's strategic
partnership with the US is tempered by its historic ties with Russia and its
sensitivity to Chinese expansionism in the Himalayas. Saudi Arabia’s growing
ties with China and Russia, alongside its delicate relationship with the US,
underscore the shifting contours of West Asian geopolitics.
Economic
Shock
The era of hyper-globalization
that defined the post-Cold War period is giving way to a more fragmented and
protectionist economic order. The 2008 global financial crisis, the US-China
trade war, and the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of global
supply chains and the risks of over-reliance on single sources of production.
Trump’s Trade
Policies and Economic Nationalism: Trump’s first
term saw the imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods, the renegotiation of NAFTA
into the USMCA, and a broader effort to reduce America’s trade deficits. His
return to power signals a continuation of this economic nationalism. Trump's
executive orders have already targeted key trade relationships and sought to
repatriate manufacturing jobs to the US. The emphasis on reshoring production
and reducing reliance on China reflects a broader global trend toward economic
self-sufficiency.
Europe’s
Economic Dilemma: Europe faces a delicate balancing act between
deepening economic ties with China and maintaining strategic alignment with the
US. The European Union's Green Deal and digital transformation initiatives
reflect an effort to assert greater economic independence. However, energy
dependence on Russia and internal divisions over fiscal policy complicate
Europe's ability to respond cohesively to global economic pressures.
Global South’s
Economic Leverage: Developing nations, particularly in Africa and
Latin America, are leveraging their natural resources and growing consumer
markets to negotiate more favorable trade terms with China, the US, and Europe.
The competition for strategic minerals, such as lithium and rare earth
elements, is reshaping trade patterns and creating new opportunities for
resource-rich nations to assert greater influence in the global economy.
AI
Shock
Artificial intelligence
represents a transformative technological and economic force with profound
geopolitical implications. The rapid development and deployment of AI are
altering the nature of work, military capabilities, and information ecosystems.
AI and Economic
Power: Nations that lead in AI research and development
are poised to gain significant economic advantages. The US and China are
currently at the forefront of AI innovation, with Europe and India attempting
to catch up. AI-driven automation is expected to disrupt labor markets,
particularly in manufacturing and service sectors, while creating new
opportunities in data analytics, cybersecurity, and software development.
AI and Military
Strategy: AI-enhanced military capabilities, including
autonomous weapons, cyber warfare, and intelligence analysis, are reshaping the
balance of military power. The US and China are investing heavily in AI for
military applications, raising concerns about an arms race in autonomous
weapons systems. The absence of global norms and regulations for AI in warfare
increases the risk of unintended escalation and conflict.
AI and Political
Influence: AI’s ability to
shape public opinion through deepfakes, social media manipulation, and
data-driven propaganda presents new challenges for democratic governance. The
use of AI in surveillance and population control by authoritarian regimes
raises concerns about human rights and political freedoms. The global race to
dominate AI technology is likely to exacerbate geopolitical rivalries and
increase tensions between democratic and authoritarian states.
Trump
2.0 and the Shift to a Win-Lose Framework
Trump’s return to the White
House reflects a shift from the US’s historical role as a global stabilizer to
a more transactional, self-interested approach to global leadership. The
post-World War II order—characterized by US-led alliances, free trade, and the
enforcement of international norms—delivered long-term stability and economic
growth for most nations. Trump's approach, MAGA (Make America Great Again) however,
prioritizes short-term political and economic gains over long-term strategic
stability.
His use of executive orders to
bypass traditional diplomatic channels and his emphasis on renegotiating trade
deals and military alliances reflect a broader rejection of the cooperative
framework that defined US leadership since 1945. Trump
leads wholesale withdrawals from international organisations; executive
order declaring withdrawal from WHO on the day of inauguration of his second
Presidency; halting funding to United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRA),
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), US
Agency for International Development (USAID); and finally halting funding
for 2024 and 2025 to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), with a threat to withdraw
from it if it does not change its model to meet the US demands – a broad
leverage to reshape global trade rules to the US MAGA vision, as envisioned by
Trump 2.0.
This shift in the US approach
has left countries across the globe scampering to find new ways to adjust; from the here-to-fore well understood WTO
led multilateral win-win co-operative approach model, to a more transactional bi-lateral
win-lose model. This points towards the world moving in the direction of zero-sum
competition, where nations seek to maximize their advantages at the expense of
others. The million-dollar question that comes to mind, “Is the US reshaping
its global role in line with Trump’s vision, or will internal and external
pressures force a reassessment of these decisions”? European security negotiations
for security, statements by French President Macron, UK PM Keir Starmer and Canadian
PM Mark Carney, ceasefire in Ukraine and Gaza, a ‘just and lasting peace’ in
Ukraine are just statements right now that need positive action to be
translated to reality. There are few answers but many questions. How this will shape
up will become clearer with time. Until then ideas and vision statements will
continue to be tossed around everyday, in this new global reality of uncertainty.
Conclusion:
Navigating a New Global Reality
The
post-Cold War unipolar order—anchored by US dominance and multilateral
cooperation—had been giving way to a more fragmented and competitive
geopolitical environment. Trump's return to the White House has accelerated
this transition, shifting the US approach from global leadership to
self-interested deal-making. Some analysts have conjectured that this may be a sign
of a “systematic dismantling of the US's
leadership role in the international system”. However, latest reports
indicate that Trump 2.0, which had prioritized a ceasefire in Ukraine and Gaza,
has been successful on negotiating a limited ceasefire agreeable to both sides.
Russia and Ukraine have both agreed on Tuesday
(March 25, 2025) to halt military strikes in the Black Sea and
also on energy sites during talks brokered by the United States. In case the US
can pull off a full scale negotiated ceasefire, ensure end of hostilities, and relative
peace in Europe in a reasonable time frame, then the naysayers writing off of
the US as a global leader would not be tenable. Peace in
Ukraine will require painful compromises
from all sides, but a just and lasting solution will have to address Ukraine’s sovereignty, Russia’s security concerns, and
long-term regional stability – a tall order indeed. Will the US be able
to pull it off? Finally, Trump's success or failure in negotiating peace in
Ukraine and Gaza could determine whether the US retains its central role in
global power dynamics or becomes a declining, transactional player.
The other alternatives vying for being a part
of a multi-polar world are Russia and China; Europe; India.
We have witnessed a China Russia
summit level meeting held in Beijing on May 16-17, 2024 with a joint
statement that talks of a “rule based order”, “accelerating evolution of the
world”, “rising strength of emerging powers in the Global South”, “democratisation
of international relations and international fairness and justice”, and significantly,
“China and Russia will fully tap the potential of their bilateral relations,
promoting the realization of an equitable and orderly multipolar world and the
democratization of international relations, and unite to build a just and
reasonable multipolar world. China and Russia are proposing what the US held
very dear at one time and encouraged/ pushed/ cajoled/ forced the world to
follow, through multilateral institutions that it funded and supported. The
push – pull is evident in these two competing narratives that are likely to
lead to a restructuring of the world order.
Europe has a broad vision of stepping
into a more prominent role, with the European leaders stepping up to largely take ownership
of European security to ensure enduring peace and security, starting with a
framework for a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. There are many questions
yet to be answered but the broad vision is emerging with France taking the lead
to arrange summit level meetings of the “coalition of the willing”. However,
Europe is not very clear on the modalities, as the US right now is not willing
to fund or support the ongoing war in Ukraine. Significantly, Canada is in the
process of re-aligning its strategic vision with that of Europe and has opted
to be a part of the countries supporting Ukraine in its war. Europe’s
ability to fill the leadership vacuum left by a more inward-looking US remains
uncertain—Macron’s leadership will be tested by internal EU divisions and
external pressure from Russia and China.
Most other countries,
including India, are still trying to assess and adjust to the dynamics of the
fast changes being brought about with US on one side; China/ Russia on the
other axis; Europe, Canada and Australia are in the process of getting their
act together.
Analysts are discussing multiple
options at the global level, but the lack of a trusted global alternative right
now leaves the US as unpredictable, but the central player right now. The
ceasefires in Ukraine and Gaza will determine the clout that the US can still
exert on the world, and the outcome of these two conflicts in the coming months
will eventually determine the US role in an uncertainty driven world. The
coming months will determine whether the world transitions to a more balanced
multipolar order—or descends into prolonged instability and strategic rivalry.
Comments