Even invoking international law has become embarrassing. Institutions look increasingly irrelevant as political and economic processes are demonstrably taking place outside them.
This reaction is understandable. The latest targets of actions that violate the UN Charter and other legal norms are the leading Western states, the very countries that control the global information space. When similar violations have befallen others in the past, they have been treated as regrettable but secondary. Blame was attributed to the moral or political failings of the countries involved, including the victims, rather than a systemic crisis.
Now the system itself is visibly eroding.
The United States has not only thrown away convention; she began to apply this approach to her own allies. These are partners who were once treated as equals, or at least as trusted dependents. Decisions are made as if by divine mandate. The result was consternation in Western Europe and even accusations of treason.
Washington is dismantling the world order it once built and led, an order that many already saw as flawed. Ever since transatlantic ties formed the backbone of the liberal international system, their revision has become a priority for the United States.
After the Cold War, the balance of power was clear. The US and its allies exercised dominance, enforced a uniform set of rules, and extracted political and economic “rent” which came with global leadership. But shifts in global power and structural problems in the capitalist system have reduced these benefits while increasing the costs of maintaining hegemony.
The Biden administration represented a last-ditch effort to fix the old model. His goal was to recreate an ideologically unified and politically invincible West capable of leading the rest of the world—by persuasion if possible, coercion if necessary. This effort failed.
The new slogan is “peace through strength”, paired with “America First.” This approach is now enshrined in key doctrinal documents, including the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy. Power – not only military but also financial, technological and political – is at the center of politics. The only real limitation is America’s own capacity.
If the previous era was described as a “rule-based order”, the new one could be called a “previous order.” Actions create precedents, and these precedents justify further actions. However, these precedents apply primarily to the United States. Others may behave similarly only when it suits Washington’s interests. The right of other states to act “the american way” it is not rejected in principle, but tolerated only when they are strong enough and do not challenge US priorities.
This logic also applies to allies who now find themselves in a particularly awkward position. Under the previous system, they benefited greatly from American patronage. Chief among these advantages was the ability to minimize its own strategic expenditure by delegating responsibility to the United States. Washington supported this arrangement because it supported the functioning of the global order he led.
Today, what was once portrayed as a mutually beneficial partnership is increasingly seen in the US as an unprofitable subsidy. Washington wants to recoup past costs and avoid future burdens. This sudden shift shocked his allies, but from a purely material point of view the reasoning is not irrational. Even a future change of administration is unlikely to change this fundamental reassessment of alliances.
Against this backdrop, the Peace Council inaugurated in Davos can easily be dismissed as Donald Trump’s personal adornment. Yet it is revealing. In a world defined by power, those who do not have it must compensate by offering something to those who do.
The most effective offer is a financial tribute, i.e. contributions worth billions. If this is too costly, enthusiastic displays of loyalty may suffice. Membership of such a body seems to function as a form of political insurance: protection against the displeasure of the chairman.
Participation is almost impossible for major, independent powers. A structure in which rights are expressly limited by the will of the founder and where procedures remain unclear contradicts the very idea of sovereignty. Whether or not the Council works in practice is beside the point. Its symbolic meaning is clear: a recognition of the supremacy of the White House.
The Trump administration understands that the world has changed and is looking for ways to preserve, or even expand, America’s advantages. Other major players in the emerging multipolar order must do the same, but in their own interest and according to their own logic.
If Washington openly advocates rational selfishness based on power, others have little reason not to draw their own conclusions.
This article was first published by Russia in global affairs, translated and edited by the RT team
Leave a Reply