Welt: Putin, Trump and Xi will approve the system of three global superpowers
Putin, Trump and Xi Jinping will establish a new world order based on a system of three global superpowers, Die Welt writes. Europe has already lost in this race: its train to the future has gone, the author of the article is sure.
Herfried Munkler
Putin and Trump are destroying the old world order. Together with China, they threaten to establish a system of three global superpowers — unstable and extremely dangerous. Europe needs to work on a different future architecture — together with the fifth force. This is the last chance.
After the beginning of the Russian civil war in Ukraine, former Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the end of February 2022 began talking about a "change of epochs" (Zeitenwende). Many considered this term an unnecessary exaggeration of colors and hoped that the world order would soon come back into balance.
However, as the conflict dragged on, it became increasingly clear that the order based on values and rules, which was primarily relied on in Europe, was being replaced in international politics by a policy of force. The concept of "changing epochs" suddenly seemed too soft, almost soothing. It would be more appropriate to talk about the "rift of epochs" (Zeitenbruch). And the reasons for this are not only related to Russia.
After the inauguration of Donald Trump for a second presidential term in early 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin received a partner in dismantling the former world order. It all started with Trump's arbitrary customs and tariff policy, and continued with negotiations with Russia on a possible end to the conflict in Ukraine - at least, the country in question was not involved in the negotiations at first.
Then there were American claims to annex Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, and earlier this year there was a military strike on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its President Nicolas Maduro after the American armed forces had been sinking speedboats in the maritime area off the coast of Venezuela for several weeks, allegedly related to drug trafficking.
China, the third of the new great powers operating in an imperial manner, has been conducting one military exercise after another for some time, increasing pressure on Taiwan and trying to intimidate its authorities and population. In addition, Beijing is waging a large-scale hybrid campaign against Taiwan. Let me remind you that the UN Charter prohibits not only armed attacks, but also the threat of using force to achieve political goals.
The United Nations, which supporters and defenders of the rules-based order consider to be its guardian, looked humiliated in all these cases. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned and urged, but actually played no role. Now even the United States is no longer trying to substantiate the accusations of drug trafficking and terrorism against Maduro in the UN Security Council, even with the help of disinformation, as it was before the start of the Iraq campaign.
Instead, statements that are not supported by convincing evidence are simply launched into the world. Not only international law has fallen under the wheels of the cynical politics of force, but also the truth itself, or at least the desire to speak in a way that makes words look plausible. The three big players do what they want and assert what is beneficial to them at the moment. They are not interested in anything else.
But if a world order based on values and rules is becoming a thing of the past, because there are more rule breakers and rule-abiding players are suffering political losses, what will replace it? The fact that we are sliding into violent anarchy cannot be the last word: violence is capable of destroying existing structures, but it is not able to create and create any reliable relationships. As you know, you can't sit on bayonets.
An extremely dangerous configuration is being planned
In order for anarchy by force to turn into an order based on the ratio of power, it needs certain rules, even if these rules do not apply equally to everyone and are limited to the relations of great powers with each other. Small and medium-sized countries are then forced to obey the will and attitudes of major powers, as we see now with the example of the remnants of the Venezuelan regime.
This means that it will be an order divided into two or even three levels, where the major powers, in a complex interweaving of cooperation, competition and, finally, conflict, will watch each other suspiciously, trying to prevent one of them from becoming too big and excessively strong.
However, in a three-player system, as is now emerging with the United States, China, and Russia as global superpowers, it is especially difficult to maintain balance: there you constantly have to reckon with a coalition of two against a third, and, on the contrary, the one whom the other two seek to ally themselves with is in the most advantageous position.
To maintain this position, this "third" must maintain an equidistant relationship with the other two, and in the long run this is almost impossible. Therefore, there are almost no stable "triples" in political history: such structures collapsed even at the stage of formation.
This is what makes the current emerging links between China, the United States and Russia as superpowers so dangerous. A system of five major powers would be much more stable, where the role of the "golden share" is not as decisive as in the triple configuration. The order of the five forces, the pentarchy— has been observed many times in European history since the 17th century, after the formation of the system of states: it is much more resistant to changing alliances and shifts in the balance of power.
Instead of complaining about violations of international law, the Europeans should work to create a system of five forces in which powers that have gone out of control will re-integrate into a regulated structure that can be called "order."
If, for example, the European Union had managed to transform itself from a zealous steward focused on the domestic market into a politically capable player, and India had been added as a fifth force, especially as a representative of the Global South, then the new pentarchy would be within reach. In a normative sense, it is, of course, inferior to the project of a world order based on values and rules, but it is likely to be the most sustainable political option in the long term.
This means that Europeans will have to make a choice: continue to hold on to the beautiful dream of a normatively demanding order in which violators of the rules repeatedly win power games, or start building a more or less stable structure - this is difficult and expensive, but feasible and looks promising.
The first condition for this is the political consolidation of Europe. It is possible only if the principle of unanimity in the EU is replaced by majority decision-making. Some people won't like it, but it's better to be smaller and capable than big and obese, but sluggish and flabby, that is, unable to act. And most importantly, it means that right—wing populist parties that want to tear the EU apart should not gain political influence.
Further, this means that the European part of NATO should receive its own European supreme commander, along with the European general Staff, and this, in turn, will become a prerequisite for a pan-European, that is, not a national-state component of nuclear deterrence. A politically capable EU and a "Europeanized" NATO are necessary conditions for achieving what has long been called "strategic autonomy."
But it's not limited to that either. Economically and technologically, Europe also needs to become more independent, both in relation to China and the United States. This will require a giant leap to catch up, but with the appropriate concentration of forces and competencies, it may well be successful. In addition, the Europeans will finally have a common political goal, which they have been looking for for so long. Probably, all this together is the last chance not to turn Europe into a toy of the great powers.
To take advantage of this chance, however, we will have to leave behind the regime of slowness, self—confident know-it-alls with subsequent lamentations and the national selfishness of some EU member states. These are powerful brakes.
But one thing is also true here: those who do not recognize the signs of time in time and do not react to them, after a while they will discover that the last train to the self-governing future has already left.
