The West’s Last Chance
How to Build a New Global Order Before It’s Too Lateby Alexander Stubb
An interesting article.
Stubb’s argument lands because it names the moment for what it is: the old post-WWII order isn’t “straining,” it’s collapsing in plain sight. The institutions that kept great-power rivalry in a box for 80 years weren’t built for a world where China is ascendant, Russia is openly revisionist, the U.S. is half-retreating from multilateralism, and the global South finally has the leverage to demand a seat instead of a sermon.
What he gets right is this: history isn’t drifting, it’s pivoting. And the next world order won’t be written in Paris or Washington but in the tug-of-war between West, East, and a newly self-aware South that no longer wants to be anyone’s geopolitical staging ground.
What he also nails...quietly, but unmistakably...is that the West has burned an incredible amount of credibility. Iraq, financial crises, selective morality, and transactionalism have hollowed out the “rules-based order” the West still claims to champion. If the West can’t return to consistency over hypocrisy, dialogue over monologue, it doesn’t get another century-long run. It won’t deserve one.
The question is whether the U.S. and its allies are still capable of the thing that actually built the post-1945 system: sharing power. If not, the future looks a lot more like Yalta...great powers carving up spheres of influence—and a lot less like Helsinki’s rules, norms, and actual cooperation.
Stubb is right about the stakes: this is the last chance. Not because the West disappears if it blows it, but because the next order will harden...one way or another...for decades. And if it locks in as pure multipolar transactionalism, we’ll miss the window for a world that’s merely turbulent instead of openly hostile.
The hinge is here. The door is open...for now.
Yes, hypocrisy appears to have ascended, which undermines good intentions & spreads mistrust, which produces many kinds of wars: military, economic, religious, ideological, cultural, social.
ReplyDeleteEast- West geopolitics is certainly expanding to include North- South in this first half of this century.
The transactional $USA monetary hegemony is barely upstream from a waterfall, with no portage visible to the right or left.
My speculations since global cell phone connectivity has been revolutions within the totalitarian theocracies, dictatorships & Marxist Communist autocracies.
The Democracies are floundering from this global era of migrations, especially under Islamic theocratic one belief terrorism.
But following 50 years of further wealth flows into the wealthy elite families & oligopolies, we must prosper our middle classes to release their synergy and enable creation of a bell curve distribution of new GDP wealth around the world.
If we don't do this very soon, the WEF financial & political powers elites will domineering masses like the kings of old.
I appreciate the big-picture perspective, but a lot of these points mix real global shifts with narratives that just don’t line up with what’s actually happening. But, that's to be expected in this sort of reply.
DeleteGlobal migration isn’t an “Islamic theocracy” issue — it’s climate, economics, and political collapse across many regions. Democracies aren’t struggling because of migrants; they’re struggling because of internal polarization, inequality, and leaders who thrive on division.
And the U.S. dollar isn’t about to fall off a cliff. There’s competition, sure, but no credible replacement system exists. Predictions of imminent collapse have been around for 50+ years and haven’t matched economic reality.
Wealth concentration is real — but it’s the result of policy choices, not the WEF or a shadow council. If we want a strong middle class again, we need better domestic policy, not a fight with imaginary global puppeteers.
The real danger isn’t “globalism”; it’s oversimplifying complex problems and blaming entire cultures or institutions instead of addressing root causes. Stable leadership requires more than slogans.
And a lack of accurate comprehension about the world at large by some leadership and those who blindly follow...
Wow. This is an incredibly biased and short-sighted anti-USA article that promotes globalism. So great to have a President with a backbone that puts the USA first. If standing up for the United States creates a divide between Pres. Trump and globalist world leaders, so be it! When he was sworn into office, Pres. Trump took an oath to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States to the best of his ability, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. His loyalty is to the USA, not globalism.
ReplyDeleteNice try.
Thank you for reading and commenting.
DeleteBut let’s be clear: criticism of one president’s actions is not “anti-USA,” nor is recognizing the reality of global interdependence “globalism.” Every modern U.S. administration—Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Bush Sr., even Trump in his first term—has operated within alliances because alliances serve American interests. That’s not ideology; that’s strategy.
“America First” is only meaningful if it actually strengthens America.
A foreign policy that isolates us, undermines long-standing alliances, and empowers authoritarian adversaries doesn’t put the U.S. first—it puts us alone, and weaker.
A president’s oath to defend the Constitution includes:
Upholding democratic norms
Respecting the rule of law
Supporting the international partnerships that protect U.S. security and economic stability
Those things aren’t “globalism.” They’re basic American statecraft.
Standing up for the United States doesn’t require provoking allies or rejecting cooperation. It requires competence, consistency, and understanding how power actually works in the 21st century.
If pointing out those realities is “biased,” then the bias is simply toward facts, history, and what has worked for America for generations.
Nice try indeed.