The new world order

Borders separating nation-states are an interesting concept. For the most part these imaginary lines on the earth’s surface make up stable barriers separating nations. Solid ones are agreed to by both opposing sides and constitute the main construct of how people dealing with geopolitical matters conceptualise the world. Viewed from space these imaginary lines sometimes make perfect sense following rivers and other geographical features. Others make sense from for example a cultural, religious, historical and/or ethnic perspective. Some borders are more unnatural, not aligned with other imaginary lines of separation (language, culture etc.) and/or drawn with other goals than to promote tranquility. Here increased levels of different types of conflicts can be observed.

Looking back in history one fact becomes indisputably clear. Borders have changed and changed time and time again. This fact constitutes the historical normality viewed in a longer perspective. This is not though how our current living generations perceive normality. After World War II the United States decided not to expand its territory but rather to create different levels and forms of dependencies in the allied and enemy territories that they after the war in many ways controlled. The Soviet Union took a different path and expanded borders more formally.

After the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union fell apart into different nation-states the world entered an anomaly in history. For some time, one nation ruled the world. This period lasted for around two decades. Used well it could have cemented the United States of America’s power around the globe giving it possibly a centuries-long period of strategic advantage. Short-sightedness and simple greed however squandered this prospect. The 9/11 attack, of course, had to be met with overwhelming force but the results of the response in hindsight can not be interpreted as anything other than a strategic failure.

Shortly, while keeping its eyes of the ball a formidable contestant emerged. China rose from its century of humiliation ashes and I can not but conclude that the United States was boiled as a frog in a strategic loss.

At last, the sleeping giant has woken up and is now no longer taking its greatness for granted. The fruits of globalism kept it asleep for far too long and now it realizes that it can no longer, on its own, hold the world at its will. Another giant has also awoken, claiming to be an equal and having definite ambition to in time become the number one.

There can be only one number one and the two giants are now trampling the world, sending shockwaves through every large, medium and small power trying to adapt to this new world order.

It hurts me to write this but the old world order is dead. This is an important fact that most have not yet gotten accustomed to. Many still believe that the anomaly they have gotten used to will continue, obvious from their actions, believing they still play under these rules. This is a strategic mistake. The United States has realised that it can no longer afford the extravagance of its unipolar period. If they don’t wake up, dust themselves off and own this new reality, they will become number two. This is the basic reason for the current trade adjustments.

The United States can no longer muster the resources to alone hold up the world. In a sense often negatively described they want their former dependents to become true allies, strong in themselves, making a substantive addition. Maybe will the initial feeling of abondanment morph into real strength. Maybe more actors decide that they should hold their own destiny in their own hands. If they decide so another future is possible.

We are leaving a consolidated world order where one nation decides most. Things will not look the same before another similar situation in history emerges. It is historically unlikely, but not impossible, that this will happen without a major war. Until we know in this regard something else will emerge in its place. Different power-centers will increasingly create dual-beneficial agreements, increasingly with unconventional partners. Sadly, also many sub-global conflicts will emerge.

We are now in an era where many things will happen in little time. A ruling giant will emerge one way or the other. Who, will be decided in the coming decade. Every move matters, the clock is ticking, speed is of the essence.

Update 2026-08-26: Changed “This is, sadly many would say, a strategic mistake.” to “This is a strategic mistake.”

Update 2026-08-26: Corrected grammar and spelling (going through old posts using a new tool). The content of the text was not changed in any way.