Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump’s New World Order
Wikimedia Commons
It seems like a new world order might be emerging, and Donald Trump has some influence over it. I thought it would be interesting to discuss whether a new world order is emerging or perhaps the old order is just evolving a bit. And if there is a new order, what will it look like?
The current world order (from a Western perspective) is called the Rules-based International Order. It emerged after WWII and had two opposing hegemons (USA & USSR) and a common reserve currency (US dollar). NATO is a symbol of this order. Grok summarizes it as:
The “rules-based international order” (RBIO) refers to a system of global governance where international relations are guided by a set of agreed-upon rules, norms, and institutions rather than purely by power dynamics or unilateral actions. It’s a framework that aims to promote stability, cooperation, and predictability among nations. The term is often used by policymakers, especially in Western countries, to describe a world where international law, treaties, and organizations like the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), or International Monetary Fund (IMF) shape how states interact.
At its core, the RBIO includes principles like:
-
Sovereignty: Respecting the territorial integrity and independence of nations.International Law: Adherence to treaties, conventions, and legal norms (e.g., the UN Charter or the Law of the Sea).Multilateralism: Solving problems through collective institutions rather than unilateral force.Human Rights: Promoting universal standards, though interpretations vary.Free Trade: Encouraging open markets and economic interdependence.
This evolved after the end of the Cold War to have a single hegemon (USA), strong globalization, and the emergence of China as a world power. This post-Cold War order has seen the stagnation of manufacturing and wages in the West and the emergence of a ruling class that has prospered during the stagnation. It has also seen the rise of non-state actors (Al Qaeda) and the expensive promotion of democracy in the Middle East. America is straining under the weight of national debt to provide security guarantees for Europe.
It appears that Trump is leading an effort to remake the current world order. This new new order is perhaps a rekindling of the Monroe Doctrine. Trump has moved to reduce China’s influence in the Americas. Notably with the change of operation for the Panama Canal, but also with the aggressive anti-fentanyl actions against China working with/through Mexico and Canada, and warm relationships with the anti-socialist governments in Argentina and El Salvador. If Trump had his way, everything from Alaska to Greenland and below would be under the influence of the USA and not that of Europe or China.
In Europe, Trump’s threats of withdrawing military security have awakened long-sleepy Western powers to the need for self-defense. The former Axis powers of WWII (Germany & Japan), long occupied/defended by the USA, are looking to utilize their manufacturing prowess to improve their defense capabilities. France is hinting at providing nuclear weapon protection for EU countries and Poland is rolling out mandatory military training for all men. If the reason for NATO was “to keep Germany down, the US in, and Russians out,” I think Trump’s vision for Europe is more a Washingtonian “let those nations be their own peacekeepers” with a Nixonian “Russia should be European and not partnered with China.” Trump is partnering with willing leaders in the Middle East to establish pockets of peace and prosperity. Trump is also using tariffs for both mercantile reasons and to nudge others to join this new order.
Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.There are 33 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
The Russia “out” part was more Communist Soviet Union “out” than non-communist Russia. The USA has never been at war with Russia while having fought two World Wars against Germany. As soon as Russia overthrew communism, the Cold War was over. Yet, here we are being best buddies and trading partners and defenders of Germany while Russia is our great bad enemy. How did that happen?
Project Tame Germany has been thoroughly accomplished. Project Tame Russia, on the other hand, is still in the works. Ukraine is just the latest iteration thereof.
Ask Putin. He’s the one who said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst disaster in Russian history. Communism didn’t work, but Putin seems to want bring Russia back into the same position that the SU occupied. Maybe the problem with the Russians wasn’t that they were communists. Maybe the problem with Russians is that they’re Russians.
As anyone who has actually bothered to take the time to read the speech in question (as opposed to having simply been fed someone else’s interpretation of that particular snippet from it and swallowed it whole) can easily determine, he meant it in the same way that someone who viewed the mid-20th century collapse of the British Empire as “a major geopolitical disaster of the century” would. No more, no less.
I did read it, although it’s been a while. I didn’t take that meaning from it. Why would someone use the word disaster if he didn’t think it was a bad thing? Would someone call the defeat of Nazism a disaster if he wasn’t a Nazi? Your interpretation sounds like a strained apologetic that someone made up to sweep it under the rug.
The socio-economic situation in Russia in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union was disastrous. It took 10 years to begin climbing out of that hole. The same was true of all of the newly independent former Soviet Republics to one degree or another, of course. That’s why the West rushed to stabilize things in that region the best it could, lest the situation careen from merely geopolitically disastrous to geopolitically catastrophic.
Is it really unfathomable to you that someone could view that period as disastrous without pining for the return of the Soviet Union?
For anyone else, not so unfathomable. For someone like Putin, I’d say it’s more of a stretch.
That is certainly a possibility.
Trump isn’t “leading” anything and is as isolated as you can get. No other country wants to engage in trade wars, turn Gaza into Monaco, compel Ukraine to surrender to Russia, or any of the other embarrassing, humiliating stunts he’s pulling that are covering the US with dishonor.
The post WWII order was always a facade for U.S. hegemony. The various international organizations served to create a veneer of cooperation. This cooperation was paid for with “free trade” that was in practice not free. The U.S. indulged its allies in their mercantilist trade policies as a bribe to keep them in the anti-Soviet coalition, at great expense to the American people. The bribe was further sweetened with America providing the bulk of military defense for our allies during the cold war. This state of affairs made sense at the time from a strictly utilitarian, strategic perspective.
It’s after the cold war ended that things unraveled. Trade policy that was previously tolerated as a bribe quickly transformed into a program of massive corporate welfare, with companies moving overseas for cheaper labor. This was made possible by our global military presence, which resulted in our sacrificing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to protect the global trade network, all while being economically immiserated at home.
The “rules based order” apparently does not cover immigration, which we are expected to suffer endlessly. This is yet more corporate welfare, as the costs of social services and infrastructure vastly outweigh any supposed economic benefits of immigrant labor. Americans see their wages suppressed, combined with an increased tax burden, cost of living and additional “social costs” (crime, plus reduced social trust and social capital).
The previous “world order” (it was never “new”, but old and decrepit) needed to be abandoned and restructured immediately after the end of the cold war. Unfortunately, too many people were tied into and profited from that global order, so they kept it going as long as possible to the point of crisis. Trump and MAGA are symptoms of that crisis, not the cause.
This is why I have no sympathy for Trump critics. If you wanted a better class of people to run things, then that “better class” needed to start making the necessary changes decades ago. Trump is merely the embodiment of their failure, for which there is no excuse.
A disaster they inflicted on themselves early 20th century forward.
@michaelminnott
This capsules concisely the history of American world leadership over this period which also has been the period of my life. I’m disappointed that it took me so long to gain this understanding but an individual has many things to choose from in life and many of those things are superficial and nothing more than distractions in the setting you have described.
Is the Art of the Deal another way to express the concept of persuasion?
This may be a little unfair. It was Germany during WW1 that returned Lenin to Russia for the express purpose of undermining the Tsar’s government. This was to force Russia out of the war so the Germans could concentrate their forces on the Western front.
During the ensuing civil war in Russia there were points where the anti-Bolshevik forces could have won. They enjoyed much popular support and perhaps with the assistance of the Western allies they would have won. In addition, at that point in history people had not yet gotten a full whiff of the horrors of totalitarianism, so people were more naive about what they would get.
Ultimately, business and diplomatic negotiations are all about persuasion. A good, if simplified, example of this is the movie Tommy Boy. Chris Farley’s character is not the brightest bulb, but he has a knack for interpersonal relationships. Much of the story is his character having to develop that talent to become successful as a salesman for his father’s company.
Despite having seen the horrors of totalitarianism elsewhere, we have our own home – grown Marxists here. It doesn’t take a war to create them. Should they prevail here, I will be equally unsympathetic. I’m starting to believe our interventions aren’t much better than the alternative.
In the 1800’s the USA had a good relationship with Russia. Russia helped the North in the Civil War and sold Alaska to the USA. Those days could return. Perhaps post-Putin, but there is potential in the medium-term.
People state that a lot. I hear it as being similar to someone saying the Civil War was the worst period of American history. It doesn’t mean that person wants to restart that war or back to slave days. I am sure life was very hard and chaotic in Moscow during the fall. Those 1960’s cannot come back, so the question for Russia is what path forward will they choose? Maybe the question is: what kind of leader will follow Putin?
“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” I subscribe to the Trump is a symptom theory. When I look around the world, I lump governments into three categories: corrupt capitalism, communist, and Islamic. A lot of people fear Russia (corrupt capitalism) taking over Europe (less corrupt capitalism), but they should probably worry about Europe being taken over by Islamic government. Communist and Islamic government are the most ambitious. Some people would say that modern communism is just extreme corrupt capitalism.
Yep. You can only sustain an empire for so long on stealing and corruption.
In a way, this is the story of Europe–thousands of years of fighting, alliances, and sabotage. Perhaps this is a natural outcome of countries ruled by royalty.
As Mark Steyn pointed out years ago, Russia has very big demographic problem. If we do end up dealing/cooperating with Russia in the future, it may very well not be with ethnic Russians, but with whoever replaces them.
From a realistic point of view, it is much more important for the United States to be partners on certain levels with Russia than with Ukraine. China is by far the most dangerous entity in the United States faces today. They do not hide the fact that they are coming after us and want to overcome us. It’s been asked by Kent Golding why would China want to destroy the United States when we are their largest purchaser of product? I do not have an answer for that. I think it is stupid on their part. But when somebody tells you something over and over, I think it is smart to believe it. With Russia on our side , we have a hedge to give the Chinese pause. With Russia on their side, we are pretty much alone. Israel would be our strongest ally. That is not good. But look at Europe now. Are they an ally that we can really count on? I think Trump is playing the correct hand. Respect Russia for starters and then befriend Russia.
Sometimes a parasite will allow the host to live and sometimes the parasite will extract so much it kills the host. Perhaps China is the latter. They will extract so much the US stagnates (like Europe), but by then China has hegemony and can begin extracting from Asia and Africa. If China’s goal is to achieve global or even regional dominance, that cannot happen without the weakening of the USA.
We finished taming Germany a couple of generations ago. Since then, however, Germany transitioned to a pretend woman and got hooked on castration chemicals. I hope we do a better job with Russia.
Russia seems to be already castrated, they have one of the worst demographic problems in the world. But they seem intent on causing as much trouble as possible, as they collapse.
Many have held such hopes over the past couple of centuries. Many, obviously unburdened by the chastening lessons of previous attempts, still do.
As they say in the South: Bless their hearts.
Yet another regurgitation of a claim that, on numerous occasions in quite a few discussion threads right here on Ricochet over the past 3 years or so since I’ve been a member, has been decisively demonstrated to be nothing more than uninformed wishcasting.
PS:
No, I won’t be bothering to engage in yet another tiresome bout of refutation. Let Ricochet’s search “engine” be your friend.
A quick search (not on Ricochet) shows the birthrate in Russia was 1.42 as of early 2022, which is well below replacement. And other results show that the birthrate had declined a lot from previous levels since Putin took over.
The 1.42 seems to have been Pre-Ukraine-Invasion as well. I expect it’s even worse now, in addition to the mostly-younger men being killed who thereafter can’t father more children.
Ricochet’s search engine is almost useless, unlike, say, that of Google: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/russia-tomorrow/a-russia-without-russians-putins-disastrous-demographics/. Russia, with its old, infertile, drunk, diseased, damaged, dying, and declining population, is screwed.