The Changing World Order
Today (Feb 24, 2025) marks the third year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A few days before Russia launched its first attack, I had written this (we all knew the Russian invasion was imminent).
Three years later and thirty six days since Trump took office, the global political order, long defined by rules and multilateral frameworks, is undergoing a profound transformation. At the heart of this change is America’s evolving role on the world stage, prominently reflected in its stance on the war in Ukraine. For decades, the United States championed a rules-based world order — a system of enforcement based on international law, democratic values, and shared security. Now, however, as the geopolitical landscape fractures, we confront a pressing question: Are we witnessing the end of that era and the emergence of a new, power-centric world order led by “three strong men” and unilateral deals?
This shift is something every political analyst and foreign policy expert predicted would happen long before the Nov 2024 elections. So, as much as it’s not a shock or a surprise, to live through reality is very different from living through a speculative lens.
A Fragmenting Post-War Order
The foundations of today’s global political framework were built in the aftermath of World War II. U.S.-led alliances like NATO ensured relative stability and democratic prosperity across the globe for decades. America’s economic and military dominance during this time made it the ultimate arbiter of the world’s liberal order. And Europe be
However, the forces underpinning this multilateral system — its economic dominance, political stability, and willingness to lead selflessly — have waned. The unipolar moment after the Cold War, during which the U.S. stood unrivaled, is long over. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exposed the limits of America’s military influence. Simultaneously, a rising China and a newly assertive (read bullying) Russia have capitalized on American fatigue, challenging the status quo with calculated aggression.
The war in Ukraine emerges as a crucible for these shifting dynamics. Where multilateral cooperation and shared values once dictated America’s foreign policy response, more transactional, power-driven dynamics are beginning to take over after Trump got elected. While Biden and Obama made sure the status quo of the world order was maintained, Trump, even before he came to the office in 2016 had always demonstrated his lack of willingness to be party to this collaborative situation. Within weeks after his election, we see strong messages both from Trump himself and his officials, that America is now ready to let Putin run free with his will in Europe. The shift, without a doubt, signals a notable decline in the trustworthiness of the collaborative world order.
The Ukrainian Conflict as a Catalyst
America’s evolving stance on Ukraine exemplifies this transformation. Historically, support for Ukraine symbolized America’s commitment to democratic sovereignty and deterrence of aggressors. However, recent developments after the Trump regime took charge suggest that the U.S. approach is increasingly transactional, prioritizing Russian interests and immediate national (or personal?) interests over long-term global stability.
The reported actions of U.S. envoys — such as presenting economic demands to Ukraine — reflect coercive tactics more commonly associated with great power competition than democratic partnership. It is also emblematic of a shift in American perception, where safeguarding democracy abroad is no longer seen as a guaranteed investment in national security. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s staunch resistance to these moves underscores tensions between his government’s values-centered diplomacy and the U.S.’s more self-serving stance.
Russia’s Play, America’s Priorities
For Russia, the stakes are existential. President Vladimir Putin frames the war as a battle for sovereignty and Russian security, rejecting Ukraine’s existence as an independent state aligned with Western democratic institutions. This perception forces the U.S., often ambivalent in recent years about its international responsibilities, to reevaluate its role in deterring Russian expansionism. To be precise, reevaluate may be a very weak word to describe Donald Trump’s immanent interests to curry favors to Putin.
Yet, under the surface, there is a growing sense that for some American leaders — like President Donald Trump — the principle of sovereignty may take a backseat to the possibility of striking a deal to “end the conflict.” Trump’s transactional worldview aligns neatly with Putin’s goals (or vice versa), emphasizing quick agreements over international rules or military deterrence.
This creates an inherently precarious situation. Ukraine, as a democratic nation fighting for its independence, becomes a bargaining chip in a larger great power game — a stark departure from the shared democratic solidarity of the past.
The Role of Europe
This shift has an immediate impact on Europe. America’s relative decline on the global stage leaves Europe at a crossroads. Multilateral security structures led primarily by the U.S., including NATO, remain fundamental. However, the gradual erosion of American reliability (again with Trump’s repeated chiding of NATO) has made it clear that Europe must reinforce its autonomy to avoid over-dependence.
European nations must now shift their focus toward strengthening local coalitions, investing in indigenous defense systems, and promoting unity across the continent. This pivot, while challenging, is essential for balancing against rising authoritarian threats from Russia and China.
The most pressing question for Europe is whether it can achieve true strategic autonomy in time to meet its growing responsibilities. The challenge lies not just in building military strength but in creating the political unity required for decisive collective action.
A Return to Power Politics
The current global dynamics increasingly resemble the mid-20th century world of spheres of influence and power politics. The Yalta Conference of 1945, where Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin divided post-war Europe, serves as a stark historical parallel. These agreements prioritized hard power and national interests over principles of sovereignty or democracy.
Today, leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping embody this ethos, operating through unilateral strategies and overt coercion. The actions of individuals like Trump suggest he very much wants to be part of the authoritarian trio indicating either that this shift may not remain confined to authoritarian regimes or his intentions to be the “wannabe third strong man”.
Within this framework, small nations like Ukraine risk becoming geopolitical pawns — managing their survival based on power dynamics rather than the rule of law.
This new, transactional order raises crucial concerns. Can a system based on spheres of influence and deal-making maintain global stability? Or will it escalate into renewed conflicts driven by unchecked competition among great powers?
The Fragility of Stability
The erosion of the post-war order has far-reaching implications. If smaller nations, like Ukraine, are deprived of multilateral protection, they face heightened vulnerability and an increased likelihood of aggression from stronger neighbors (read Russia). Meanwhile, the absence of strong collective security frameworks threatens to fragment the global landscape further, creating instability that hinders economic progress and democratic governance. The instability may start with Ukraine and it won’t take much time for Putin to exercise his authority over other European countries, gradually — especially if he succeeds in making Trump pull out of NATO.
However, not all hope is lost. The values of collective action, respect for sovereignty, and fostering diplomatic dialogue remain as relevant today as they were in 1945. If nations, especially in Europe, can organize to strengthen alliances while emphasizing democracy and self-responsibility, the global system may yet stabilize.
The New World Order
The evolving situation in Ukraine, coupled with shifts in America’s foreign policy, represents a profound turning point in international relations. No longer bound by the ideals of multilateralism or democratic solidarity, the world is transitioning to an order defined by pragmatism and power. With two strongmen and one wannabe strongman wanting to be the centers of this power.
This development presents challenges and opportunities alike. For smaller states like Ukraine, it’s a betrayal of the values they fought to uphold. For Europe, it’s a wake-up call to invest in its role as a fully independent actor. And for the world at large, it’s an opportunity to reassess whether reliance on “strong men and deals” can sustainably maintain peace and prosperity.
Ultimately, the survival of democratic values depends on the willingness of nations to balance their interests with a renewed commitment to shared principles. Only through this balance can the global community prevent the dark side of power politics from ushering in an era of chaos and conflict.
However, beyond the theoretical rationalization of the need for a stronger and more independent Europe, thereby laying the foundation for a new world order, the fear really is “How long is it going to take for the new world order to set in? And will that be soon enough to prevent a new era of conflicts?”
