• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

The Geopolitical Dilemmas of a New World Order

Frank Visser / ChatGPT/GROK

Me to ChatGPT:

• Are we heading towards a new world order in which super powers rule their neighbours, if needed with force?
• This is a move from international law, however imperfect, to might makes right.
• It would lead to a America First, Russia First and China First strategy, each in its own domain.
• The United Nations concept largely seems to have lost its ethical appeal.
• Perhaps it does need a reform based on the current global situation?
• The move away from global US hegemony seems at least a step in the right direction?
• Write an essay on these geopolitical dilemma's related to a New World Order.[1]
• Donald Trump seems to be in favor of this change, when he hands Ukraine to Putin. Will he hand over Taiwan to China so he can grab Greenland?

Are we heading towards a new world order in which super powers rule their neighbours, if needed with force?

It certainly looks like we're moving into a more multipolar world where regional powers assert dominance over their neighbors, sometimes through force. The post-Cold War order, where the U.S. was the uncontested global hegemon, is shifting. The rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and even regional powers like Turkey, India, and Iran indicate a trend where states act more aggressively in their spheres of influence.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a clear example—Moscow claims historical and security justifications for using force to control its neighborhood. China's assertiveness in the South China Sea and toward Taiwan suggests a similar trajectory, though it's still avoiding outright military action. The U.S. remains dominant but is increasingly focused on competition rather than global policing.

This doesn't necessarily mean a "New World Order" in the classic sense of a coordinated system of control, but rather a return to a more fragmented, unstable global system where power is exerted more regionally. International institutions like the UN seem weaker than ever in preventing this. Do you think this trend is inevitable, or could a new balance emerge?

This is a move from international law, however imperfect, to might makes right.

Yes, it does seem like a shift away from the post-World War II framework of international law, where at least in theory, sovereignty and legal norms restrained raw power. While international law has always been imperfect and selectively enforced, there was at least a broad consensus that military aggression was illegitimate unless justified by self-defense or UN authorization.

Now, that consensus is eroding. Russia openly defies borders in Ukraine, China challenges maritime law in the South China Sea, and even the U.S. and its allies, despite advocating rules-based order, have intervened militarily in ways that stretch legal justifications (e.g., Iraq, Libya). The reality is that great powers increasingly act according to what they can get away with, rather than what is legal.

This trend suggests we're moving toward a world where force, economic coercion, and spheres of influence matter more than treaties or international institutions. The UN is largely powerless, and international courts are only effective against weaker states. If this continues, the future could resemble a 19th-century-style power balance rather than a 20th-century rules-based order.

Do you see any forces that could reverse this, or is this just the new reality?

It would lead to a America First, Russia First and China First strategy, each in its own domain.

Yes, that seems to be the trajectory—each major power prioritizing its own interests and enforcing dominance in its sphere of influence, rather than adhering to a universal rules-based system.

America First: The U.S. has already been shifting toward a more transactional, interest-based foreign policy, even under Biden, despite his rhetoric about democracy and alliances. The focus is increasingly on countering China, containing Russia, and securing economic advantages. NATO and other alliances remain important, but Washington is less willing to act as the world's policeman.

Russia First: Russia openly rejects Western-led international norms, pursuing what it sees as its historical right to control former Soviet territories. Ukraine is the primary battleground, but Moscow also pressures Central Asia and even parts of Africa through Wagner-style mercenaries.

China First: China is expanding its economic and military reach, aiming for dominance in Asia and beyond. While it still operates within some legal frameworks, its actions in the South China Sea, Hong Kong, and with Taiwan show a willingness to impose its will when necessary. The Belt and Road Initiative extends its influence through economic means rather than outright force.

This multipolar order could mean constant tensions, proxy conflicts, and regional wars, but also more pragmatic, interest-based diplomacy. The question is whether any force—economic interdependence, diplomacy, or a new global crisis—could push these powers back toward more cooperative norms.

Do you think this is just a transition phase, or are we entering a long-term period of raw power politics?

The United Nations concept largely seems to have lost its ethical appeal.

Yes, the United Nations seems to have lost much of its ethical appeal and practical authority. It was originally designed to prevent great power conflicts and uphold international law, but today it often appears powerless in the face of blatant aggression.

The Security Council, meant to ensure peace, is paralyzed by the veto power of its five permanent members (U.S., Russia, China, France, UK). This means that when a major power breaks international law—like Russia invading Ukraine or the U.S. bypassing the UN for interventions—the UN can do little beyond issuing statements.

The General Assembly passes resolutions, but they are largely symbolic. Even the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court have little power over great powers, as enforcement depends on voluntary compliance.

Humanitarian agencies under the UN, like the WHO, WFP, and UNHCR, still play a role, but their effectiveness is often compromised by political interference and funding issues.

The UN still functions, but its moral authority has been severely weakened. When might makes right, institutions built on consensus lose relevance. Do you think the UN can be reformed, or is it destined to become a relic of a fading world order?

Perhaps it does need a reform based on the current global situation?

Yes, if the UN is to remain relevant, it likely needs a major reform that reflects the realities of today's world rather than the power structure of 1945. However, meaningful reform is incredibly difficult because any major changes would require the agreement of the very powers that benefit from the current system.

Some possible reforms could include:

Security Council Expansion or Veto Reform

Adding permanent members like India, Brazil, Germany, or African nations to reflect today's geopolitical balance.

Limiting or modifying the veto power so that no single country can block action on major global crises.

Greater Regional Representation

Strengthening the role of regional organizations (e.g., the African Union, ASEAN) within the UN framework to make it more inclusive and decentralized.

Stronger Enforcement of International Law

Creating mechanisms to hold great powers accountable for aggression, perhaps through economic penalties or a more independent international legal system.

Reducing Bureaucracy and Corruption

Streamlining UN agencies to focus on effectiveness rather than political compromises and bureaucratic inertia.

A More Balanced Global Order

Instead of being dominated by a few superpowers, the UN could work toward a more multipolar system where middle powers and regional blocs have a stronger voice.

The problem is that great powers benefit from the current structure. The U.S., China, and Russia are unlikely to give up veto power, and smaller nations don't have enough leverage to force reform. So, unless there's a major crisis that forces change, the UN may continue to decline in influence.

Do you think any of these reforms are realistic, or will the UN just fade into irrelevance over time?

The move away from global US hegemony seems at least a step in the right direction?

It depends on how you define "the right direction." A move away from U.S. hegemony could mean a fairer, more balanced world—or it could mean a return to raw power politics where regional powers dominate their neighbors with little restraint.

On the positive side, a multipolar world could:

Reduce Western dominance and allow for more diverse global leadership.

Give regional powers more influence in shaping policies that affect them.

Encourage balance-of-power diplomacy rather than unilateral military interventions.

But there are serious downsides, too:

Smaller nations could become more vulnerable to coercion by regional powers (e.g., Ukraine with Russia, Taiwan with China).

Weaker international law could mean more wars and territorial disputes.

Economic fragmentation could slow globalization, leading to protectionism and supply chain instability.

U.S. dominance was flawed and often self-serving, but it at least provided some stability under a rules-based framework (even if selectively enforced). The big question is whether a post-hegemonic world can develop new structures to prevent chaos—or if it will just descend into competition among great powers.

Do you see a viable alternative to U.S. hegemony, or is the world just trading one flawed system for another?

Write an essay on these geopolitical dilemma's related to a New World Order.

The Geopolitical Dilemmas of a New World Order

The global balance of power is shifting. The post-Cold War era, dominated by U.S. hegemony and a largely Western-led international order, is giving way to a multipolar world where regional powers assert themselves, sometimes through force. While this transition may seem like a step toward a more balanced global system, it also raises serious dilemmas about security, international law, and the future of global stability. Is the world moving toward a fairer system, or are we witnessing the return of raw power politics where "might makes right"?

The Decline of U.S. Hegemony

For decades, the United States acted as the world's dominant power, shaping global institutions, enforcing trade rules, and maintaining military superiority. This hegemony provided a form of stability, albeit one often criticized for its double standards—selective interventions, economic coercion, and failures in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, with China's rise, Russia's military assertiveness, and growing regional powers such as India, Turkey, and Iran, U.S. dominance is no longer unchallenged.

This shift presents both opportunities and risks. On one hand, a more multipolar world could allow for a fairer distribution of power, giving regional actors more influence. On the other, the decline of U.S. global leadership may leave a power vacuum that leads to instability, as competing powers jockey for dominance in their respective spheres of influence.

The Rise of Regional Power Politics

One of the most significant trends of this new world order is the increasing willingness of regional powers to assert control over their neighbors. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the clearest example, with Moscow justifying its aggression through historical claims and security concerns. Similarly, China's assertiveness in the South China Sea and threats toward Taiwan suggest a growing confidence in using force or coercion to achieve strategic goals.

This raises a fundamental question: are we moving away from a world governed by international law, however imperfect, and toward a system where might makes right? If powerful nations can redraw borders, ignore sovereignty, and use military force with little consequence, the post-World War II commitment to legal frameworks and diplomacy could unravel.

The Decline of the United Nations and International Law

The erosion of U.S. hegemony also coincides with the decline of the United Nations as a meaningful force in global politics. Originally designed to prevent conflicts and uphold international law, the UN now appears increasingly powerless in the face of blatant violations. The Security Council, dominated by the five permanent members (U.S., Russia, China, France, and the UK), is paralyzed by veto power, preventing effective action on major crises. Meanwhile, international legal institutions like the International Criminal Court lack enforcement mechanisms against great powers, further weakening the global commitment to law over force.

If international institutions continue to lose legitimacy, global politics could revert to a 19th-century-style balance of power system, where military strength and economic leverage dictate outcomes rather than treaties and diplomatic negotiations.

The New Spheres of Influence: America First, Russia First, China First

In this evolving global order, each major power is increasingly pursuing a self-interested strategy. The United States, while still the strongest global actor, has moved toward a more transactional, "America First" approach, focusing on competition with China and selective engagement in global conflicts. Russia, under Vladimir Putin, has embraced an aggressive "Russia First" policy, using military force and hybrid warfare to expand its influence. Meanwhile, China's "China First" strategy revolves around economic dominance, technological supremacy, and military expansion in Asia.

While this might create a rough balance of power, it also risks instability, as smaller nations may become trapped in the rivalries of great powers. Countries like Ukraine, Taiwan, and nations in the South China Sea could become battlegrounds in these power struggles, further eroding global stability.

Is Reform Possible?

Given these challenges, can the international system adapt to this new reality? Some argue that the UN and other global institutions must be reformed to reflect the current balance of power. Potential reforms could include:

Expanding the Security Council to include emerging powers like India, Brazil, and African nations.

Modifying the veto system to prevent a single country from blocking critical actions.

Strengthening regional organizations like the African Union or ASEAN to give them more decision-making power.

Developing stronger enforcement mechanisms for international law, potentially backed by economic or diplomatic consequences.

However, meaningful reform would require the cooperation of the very powers that benefit from the current system, making change unlikely unless a major crisis forces a global reckoning.

Conclusion: A Dangerous but Uncertain Future

The shift from a unipolar U.S.-led order to a multipolar world presents both opportunities and dangers. While it may reduce Western dominance, it also risks creating a world where force replaces law, and smaller nations are left vulnerable to regional hegemons. Whether the world can navigate this transition without descending into chaos depends on whether new structures can emerge to manage great power competition—before conflict becomes the primary tool of diplomacy once again.

In the end, the question remains: is the world simply trading one flawed system for another, or is there still hope for a more stable and cooperative international order?

Donald Trump seems to be in favor of this change, when he hands Ukraine to Putin. Will he hand over Taiwan to China so he can grab Greenland?

Trump's approach to geopolitics has always been transactional, focusing on "deals" rather than upholding traditional alliances or international law. Since he has returned to power, his stance on Ukraine, Taiwan, and even Greenland could follow this pattern.

Ukraine: A Deal for Putin?

Trump has repeatedly suggested he would end the Ukraine war "in 24 hours," which likely means forcing Ukraine into a settlement favorable to Russia. He has also been skeptical of NATO and military aid to Kyiv, making it plausible that he might pressure Ukraine into ceding territory in exchange for a so-called peace deal. This would align with his past admiration for strongman leaders and his desire to shift U.S. focus away from European conflicts.

Taiwan: The Next Bargaining Chip?

If Trump sees Ukraine as expendable, the big question is whether he would apply the same logic to Taiwan. While he took a tough stance on China during his presidency, his foreign policy is driven by perceived U.S. benefits rather than ideology. He might view Taiwan as another "problem" to be solved through negotiation rather than confrontation. If he believes that the U.S. gains little from defending Taiwan—or that China could offer something more valuable in return—he might be willing to strike a deal, especially if it fits into his broader strategy of reducing U.S. global commitments.

Greenland: Trump's Unrealized Ambition

Trump famously expressed interest in buying Greenland from Denmark in 2019, an idea that was dismissed as absurd at the time. But his focus on securing strategic U.S. assets remains. Now that he has returned to power, would he try again? Given Greenland's location, natural resources, and military value, he might see it as a geopolitical prize worth pursuing—especially if he believes that stepping back from Taiwan or Ukraine could create leverage for other territorial ambitions.

A New World Order Under Trump?

If Trump were to push such deals, it would accelerate the transition to a world where great powers carve out spheres of influence with little regard for international norms. Handing Ukraine to Russia and Taiwan to China would signal that military aggression is a valid means of redrawing borders. Meanwhile, U.S. allies would be left questioning whether they can rely on American commitments at all.

Would this be a strategic masterstroke or a catastrophic unraveling of global stability? That depends on whether one sees U.S. dominance as a stabilizing force—or as an outdated burden that Trump is eager to shed.

NOTES

[1] I have also asked Grok to weigh in on this topic. Here's the essay it generated:

The Geopolitical Dilemmas of a New World Order: From International Law to Might Makes Right

The world stands at a crossroads, where the post-World War II framework of international law, multilateral institutions, and collective security appears to be fraying. In its place, a nascent geopolitical paradigm is emerging—one where superpowers assert dominance over their neighbors, potentially with force, prioritizing national interest over global cooperation. This shift from a rules-based order to a "might makes right" ethos is epitomized by strategies such as "America First," "Russia First," and "China First," each superpower carving out its domain of influence. The United Nations, once a beacon of ethical governance, seems to be losing its moral and practical sway, prompting calls for reform. Meanwhile, the decline of U.S. global hegemony raises questions about whether this transition could, paradoxically, be a step toward a more balanced world—or a descent into chaos. At the heart of this transformation is Donald Trump, whose policies and rhetoric, particularly regarding Ukraine, suggest a willingness to cede territories to rival powers while pursuing American gains elsewhere, such as in Greenland. This essay explores these geopolitical dilemmas, questioning whether we are indeed heading toward a new world order and what it might mean for global stability.

The Erosion of International Law and the Rise of Might Makes Right

The post-1945 international order, built on the ashes of global conflict, sought to constrain raw power through institutions like the United Nations, treaties, and norms prohibiting territorial conquest. Though imperfect—riddled with veto power stalemates and selective enforcement—this system provided a framework for dialogue and conflict resolution. Today, however, that framework is under strain. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its ongoing war in Ukraine, China's assertive moves in the South China Sea and threats toward Taiwan, and even Trump's musings about seizing Greenland or the Panama Canal signal a return to a pre-modern logic: power dictates outcomes, not principles.

This shift is not merely a rejection of legalism but a reassertion of spheres of influence, a concept reminiscent of 19th-century imperialism or the Cold War's bipolar divisions. In this emerging order, superpowers like the United States, Russia, and China prioritize their immediate geopolitical interests, often at the expense of smaller nations. The "America First" doctrine under Trump exemplifies this, emphasizing transactional deals over multilateral commitments. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, justified by Putin as a defense of its historical sphere, and China's claim over Taiwan as an internal matter reflect parallel "Russia First" and "China First" strategies. Each superpower seeks to dominate its neighbors, using force or coercion when diplomacy fails, sidelining the idea that sovereignty is inviolable.

The United Nations: A Fading Ethical Anchor in Need of Reform?

The United Nations, established to prevent such power grabs, appears increasingly impotent. Its inability to halt Russia's aggression in Ukraine—exacerbated by Moscow's Security Council veto—has exposed its structural weaknesses. The General Assembly's resolutions, while symbolic, lack enforcement power, and the U.S.'s recent alignment with Russia against a resolution condemning the Ukraine invasion underscores a growing disregard for U.N. authority. This erosion of ethical appeal raises a critical question: can the U.N. adapt to a world where superpowers prioritize dominance over cooperation?

Reform is often proposed as a solution—expanding the Security Council, reducing veto power, or reorienting the U.N. toward managing multipolar tensions rather than enforcing a universal order. Yet, any reform faces a paradox: the very powers that would need to agree—namely the U.S., Russia, and China—are the ones most invested in a might-makes-right world. Without their buy-in, the U.N. risks becoming a relic, its ethical vision supplanted by raw power politics. Still, a reformed U.N. could theoretically mediate between competing spheres, offering a forum to negotiate boundaries and prevent escalation. The challenge lies in crafting a structure that reflects current realities without legitimizing aggression.

The Decline of U.S. Hegemony: A Step Forward or a Dangerous Vacuum?

For decades, U.S. hegemony underpinned the global order, enforcing rules (however selectively) and deterring overt territorial grabs. Critics argue this dominance stifled other voices, imposing a Western-centric system that ignored regional complexities. The move away from this unipolarity, accelerated by Trump's isolationist tendencies, might thus seem a step toward a more equitable multipolar world. A system where power is distributed among the U.S., Russia, China, and perhaps emerging players like India could, in theory, better reflect global diversity.

Yet, this shift carries risks. Hegemony, while flawed, provided stability; its retreat leaves a vacuum that aggressive powers are eager to fill. Trump's apparent willingness to "hand Ukraine to Putin"—evident in his pressure on Kyiv to cede territory and his administration's negotiations with Russia—suggests a tacit acceptance of spheres of influence. If this pattern extends to Taiwan, where Trump has expressed ambivalence about U.S. defense commitments, China might interpret it as a green light to act. In exchange, Trump's fixation on acquiring Greenland—framed as a national security imperative—hints at a quid pro quo: ceding rival spheres for American gains closer to home. This transactional approach undermines the notion of a shared global commons, replacing it with a fragmented world where might dictates borders.

Trump's Role: Architect or Opportunist of the New Order?

Donald Trump emerges as a pivotal figure in this transition, though whether he is its architect or merely its opportunist remains debated. His foreign policy rejects the multilateralism of his predecessors, favoring bilateral deals with strongmen like Putin and Xi Jinping. By sidelining Ukraine in peace talks and aligning with Russia at the U.N., Trump signals a break from decades of U.S. support for smaller nations against larger aggressors. His rhetoric about Greenland, Panama, and even Canada as potential U.S. possessions revives an imperial mindset, albeit cloaked in modern economic terms like tariffs and security.

The question of Taiwan looms large. If Trump concedes it to China—perhaps to avoid a costly conflict or to secure trade concessions—while pursuing Greenland, he would cement this new order's logic: superpowers trade territories like poker chips, ignoring the aspirations of those within them. Such a move would embolden China and Russia, potentially destabilizing Asia and Europe further. Yet, Trump's unpredictability complicates this narrative. His admiration for Putin and Xi contrasts with his distrust of their intentions, suggesting he might resist ceding too much if it weakens America's relative position.

Implications and Uncertainties

A new world order defined by superpower dominance offers both clarity and peril. Clarity, in that it simplifies global alignments—nations align with or resist their regional hegemon. Peril, in that it invites conflict where spheres overlap, as in Ukraine or the South China Sea, and leaves smaller states vulnerable to coercion. The decline of international law might expedite resolutions to intractable disputes, but at the cost of justice and stability.

The move away from U.S. hegemony could diversify global power, yet without a reformed U.N. or alternative framework, it risks a free-for-all where might reigns supreme. Trump's policies accelerate this shift, but their long-term impact hinges on how Russia and China respond—and whether smaller nations can carve out autonomy amid the giants. Are we heading toward such a world? The evidence suggests yes, but its shape remains fluid, a battleground of competing visions where ethics, law, and power collide. The geopolitical dilemmas of this potential new order demand vigilance, not resignation, lest history's lessons of unchecked might repeat themselves.

GROK'S REFERENCES

1. Trump's new world order: Strongmen make the rules, Axios
2. In Trump's new world order, strongmen dominate and might makes right, The Washington Post
3. 4 thoughts on Trump's new world order from foreign relations expert Richard Haass, NPR
4. Trump is laying groundwork for a new world order built around the US, China and Russia, CNBC
5. Trump's threats on Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine and Panama revive old-school US imperialism of dominating other nations by force, after decades of nuclear deterrence, The Conversation
6. Trump's new world order is taking shape, The Washington Post
7. Foreign Policy: The Global Magazine of News and Ideas
8. The Death of the World America Made, Carnegie Endowment
9. Top Geopolitical Risks of 2025, spglobal.com
10. Shift in the geopolitical landscape, Eurpean Commission
11. In first month, Trump upends century-old approach to the world, The Washington Post
12. The Price of Trump's Power Politics, Foreign Affairs
13. Trump's threats to Greenland, Canada and Panama explain everything about America First, CNN
14. Geopolitics and its Impact on Global Trade and the Dollar, IMF
15. Does Anyone Still Understand the 'Security Dilemma'?, Foreign Policy