This Is How a World Order Disappears

I n his memoir, The World of Yesterday The renowned Austrian author Stefan Zweig reflected upon Europe prior to the outbreak of the First World War. In his writings, this period was described as an era of unparalleled security—the Golden Age—when establishments like the Habsburg monarchy seemed eternal. However, Zweig witnessed most of his familiar world obliterated by successive wars; the second conflict proved even more catastrophic than the first. He tragically took his own life in 1942 amidst this ongoing devastation.

In his younger years, the Europeans depicted by Zweig were oblivious to the precarious nature of their society, marked by escalating internal conflicts and deteriorating global stability. Similarly, many individuals in contemporary Western societies have also underestimated this vulnerability. It comes as a shock and a source of distress that elements we considered permanent seem to be disappearing: American democracy, once an exemplar for numerous countries; along with multinational organizations and principles that facilitated collaboration among various states to prevent conflict and address common challenges like environmental shifts and widespread illnesses.

As a historian, my focus has been on periods when an outdated system crumbles irreversibly and gives way to a new one; however, I never imagined being part of such a transformative era myself. Yet here we are today, witnessing our world tilt towards intense competition among major powers marked by distrust and apprehension—a global framework wherein dominant forces act at their discretion, much like Thucydides observed: "The powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must." The resurgence of imperialism, despite having seemingly faded from view for some time, is making itself known once again. Nations and policy institutes now openly discuss zones of control—concepts previously shunned by the U.S. History suggests that this shift won’t occur smoothly nor without conflict.

T he past holds many Instances of significant transformation include the downfall of regimes, monarchies transitioning into republics, entire civilizations disappearing, and traditional methods of handling interactions among peoples and states being discarded to make way for novel approaches.

Transformation can occur incrementally over time or abruptly. The Roman Empire along with its eastern counterpart experienced gradual decline interspersped with periods of resurgence. In contrast, the French Revolution starting in 1789, Russia’s revolution in 1917, as well as the dissolution of the Soviet government and conclusion of the Cold War transpired within mere weeks or months.

Forewarnings can alert us, provided we listen closely, that established systems and regulations are crumbling away. Just like how a seemingly sturdy building might show signs of instability — with shifting foundations, leaking roofs, and opportunistic neighbors invading your property. Typically, when longstanding political orders collapse, financial issues often play a significant role; for instance, pre-1789 France had reached bankruptcy. Occasionally, state administrations cease operating efficiently, leading segments of the populace—often including high-ranking officials—to lose faith in governance. In 1917 Russia, women taking to urban roads to demonstrate against food shortages coexisted with farmers reclaiming lands from landlords, signaling widespread disillusionment among many Russians who viewed their tsarist leadership as both ineffective and treacherously untrustworthy. Similarly, during the 1980s within the USSR, people couldn’t overlook the stark contrast between communist ideals of equality and prosperity versus the actuality of an authoritarian and inept administration—even core Communist Party affiliates began doubting these once-held beliefs.

[ George Packer: The World Order Under Trump ]

Global orders disintegrate similarly. Internal and external pressures accumulate against the framework. Support diminishes, even amongst those who have gained substantially under the current regime, whereas those opposing it become more audacious and encourage each other. Prior to the outbreak of the First World War, the weakening Ottoman Empire offered tempting prospects across North Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Nonetheless, international entities generally agreed not to interfere out of concern for sparking significant disputes between themselves. However, in 1911, the comparatively young Italian nation launched an invasion into present-day Libya based on minimal pretext. Observing this indifference from larger global forces, the Balkan nations took notice. A year later, some of these countries united to initiate their assault upon the Ottoman Empire.

Never underestimate the influence of examples in human matters. Currently, countries around the globe are disregarding an established principle that has held sway since the conclusion of World War II: territorial acquisitions through forceful means by one nation over another won’t be acknowledged as legitimate. Russian President Vladimir Putin expanded Russia’s control by seizing portions of Georgia in 2008 and invading Ukraine four years later for Crimea along with sections of the Donbas area, all aimed at restoring imperial ambitions reminiscent of those seen during czarist times. Peace talks involving Ukraine—now largely left without support from the U.S.—and Russia appear destined to permit Russia to retain this captured land, potentially paving the way for additional expansions too. Meanwhile, Israeli actions suggest intentions towards incorporating segments of Gaza perhaps extending even to southern Lebanon; concurrently, Rwanda’s forces have advanced into DR Congo next door. Such behaviors might embolden China, leading them to believe global acceptance awaits their efforts to bring Taiwan fully within their dominion.

A fresh global framework accompanied by new regulations is emerging.

T The alternative to what is commonly accepted The international order, similar to the absence of governance, represents Thomas Hobbes’s vision of a dystopian state: a bleak, chaotic realm devoid of "arts; no letters; no society;" and most horrifically, characterized by constant dread and peril of violent demise. Life within this setting is isolated, impoverished, filthy, brutal, and fleeting. Reestablishing a sustainable and efficient international order after losing it is an arduous and lengthy journey.

Up until modern times, international systems operated on a regional rather than global level. These regional frameworks eventually served as blueprints for larger entities, yet prior to the late 1400s, traveling long distances was both time-consuming and perilous, often leaving different parts of the globe with limited knowledge—or none at all—of each other’s existence.

The foundations of today's global system originated during the Age of Discovery when European explorers began navigating around the globe, establishing distant outposts, and eventually forming empires. The advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century brought about innovations like railroads, steamships, and telegraph systems, linking individuals across remote regions. These technological leaps led to various forms of international structures. In some cases, particularly in 18th-century Europe, nations maintained a balance through complex alliance networks, constantly vying for supremacy—a situation ripe for conflict. At times, however, a dominant power controlled international dynamics either through sheer dominance or direct imperial rule, similar to how ancient Rome governed its surroundings or how invaders like the Ottoman Empire secured regional control over neighboring states. For hundreds of years, China viewed itself as the central kingdom with divine authorization for governance bestowed upon its ruler. Following this pattern, Britain stood atop the world hierarchy from roughly mid-19th century up until possibly the beginning of WWII; subsequently, America took on this role starting from 1989 onwards.

[ Michael Schuman argues that Trump gives China control of global affairs. ]

During the Trump administration, the United States no longer exhibits an inclination to lead globally, whereas China has not yet reached this level of capability. Historical precedents offer alternative models for understanding today’s dynamics and potentially shaping tomorrow’s world order: regions where major powers exert control over specific areas or critical locations like how the British Empire dominated the Suez Canal or the US controlled Panama. In these spheres of influence, minor powers either reluctantly submit to the dominant power’s authority or avoid encroachment altogether to protect their territories. During the 19th century, Western nations along with Japan established exclusive domains within a weakening China. Similarly, both Britain and Russia delineated separate zones of influence in Iran back in 1907.

This type of arrangement is fundamentally unstable; areas where these spheres intersect often turn into battlegrounds referred to as "shatter zones." Prior to World War I, Austria-Hungary and Russia competed for control over the Balkans, similar to how China and India currently vie for influence among nations located within and near their mutual borders. When one nation perceives that a competitor's hold is weakening, it may feel compelled to encroach upon that territory. Moreover, the sway held by powerful states within their respective domains can fluctuate based on internal dynamics such as civil unrest and financial crises. Smaller entities subjected unwillingly to the rule of major powers might harbor resentment and even rebel. For instance, through both rhetoric and policy decisions, the Trump administration sparked renewed animosity towards the U.S. across large parts of Latin America and caused friction between Canada and its southern counterpart.

A former great power that feels it is losing ground might act unpredictably. In 1914, Austria-Hungary observed that Serbia, which was supposed to be within its domain, had come under Russian sway. Angered and intent on eliminating Serbia as a threat, Austria-Hungary inadvertently triggered a global conflict that ultimately led to the downfall of their empire along with widespread devastation elsewhere.

P erhaps history can offer There is also some caution along with this optimism. The idea of an international order grounded in regulations, guidelines, and commonly accepted principles dates back many years. Hugo Grotius, the renowned Dutch thinker from the late 16th and early 17th centuries, discussed the existence of an international community equipped with legal frameworks and methods for resolving conflicts. About a hundred years afterward, Immanuel Kant suggested forming a League of Nations, envisioning it as a means to stop wars and ultimately unite all nations under one harmonious entity.

During part of the 19th century, what Kant referred to as the " crooked timber of humanity" seemed to become more aligned. Democracy expanded across the globe, leading to questions about the traditional notion of national interests being dictated solely by authoritarian rulers or viewing military strength as the paramount form of power. Leaders and intellectuals embracing democracy started imagining a different and superior global framework—a system encompassing universal laws, organizations, and shared principles. However, the outbreak of the First World War transformed these ideas from mere contemplations into concrete plans for implementation.

Many Europeans were shocked by the onset of the conflict; however, warning signs had been evident prior to 1914. Employment opportunities for Europe’s skilled workforce dwindled due to either job losses or decreasing wages as industries relocated to regions offering less expensive labor. Populist figures ignited animosity towards minority groups such as Jews, immigrants, and elites. Meanwhile, revolutionaries criticized the prevailing social structure as inherently unfair and advocated for establishing a completely new societal framework. Additionally, the readiness of major European powers to collaborate peacefully through institutions like the Concert of Europe diminished over time. Instead, fresh alliances formed: one comprising Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy, and another including France, Britain, and Russia. Tensions escalated further following conflicts and wars within the Balkan region during the early part of the twentieth century, sparking feelings of vengeance and contributing to an escalating arms race. This set the stage for heightened risks across Europe, making it possible for minor crises to trigger widespread consequences—a situation which materialized when Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in June 1914.

[ Ryan Crow: I've witnessed how 'America First' concludes. ]

The repercussions of the war were so catastrophic for Europe and beyond that many believed mankind was destined for doom. However, disasters often compel people to consider resolutions that may previously have been deemed unrealistic or far-fetched.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson led the United States into World War I with a firm commitment to seek neither territorial gains nor advantages for his nation. His primary objective was establishing an international system grounded in principles of equity: all peoples have the right to govern themselves, and countries worldwide should unite to safeguard vulnerable populations and deter future conflicts. Addressing Congress in January 1918, Wilson asserted that "reason, justice, and shared human welfare ought to dominate." For this purpose, a novel entity—the League of Nations—was created to ensure mutual protection among member states, counteract aggression even through armed intervention when needed, and strive toward enhancing global well-being. Upon traveling to Europe for the post-war assembly in Paris, Wilson received rapturous receptions from enthusiastic throngs who hailed him as a liberator.

Today’s historians view the league as unsuccessful due to actions taken during the 1930s when member nations such as Germany, Japan, and Italy—the so-called revisionist powers—violated its principles to launch aggressive wars: Germany against neighboring countries, Japan against China, and Italy against Ethiopia. Although major global players like the Soviet Union, France, Britain, and the United States voiced their discontent and enacted limited punitive measures, they refrained from taking stronger action. This ultimately led to an even more devastating Second World War. However, both the aspiration and concept underlying the league persisted. In fact, the magnitude of this conflict and the emergence of nuclear weapons only intensified the urgency for establishing a stable worldwide system.

Prior to the United States entering World War II, another American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was advocating for an international body comprising countries from around the globe. He secured backing from Britain and successfully persuaded both the American public and Congress to support his vision—a feat Woodrow Wilson hadn’t accomplished. Additionally, he convinced Joseph Stalin to reluctantly agree that the Soviet Union would be part of this new system. This encompassed more than just the creation of the United Nations; it also involved establishing the Bretton Woods institutions designed to regulate worldwide economic interactions.

Following World War II, these mechanisms and the system they supported enabled global superpowers to resolve numerous conflicts without resorting to warfare. An extensive network of international organizations, specialized agencies, accords, regulations, and non-governmental entities tightened the bonds around the planet. Despite moments during the Cold War when this framework seemed vulnerable to fracture, armed confrontations persisted across various regions. Nevertheless, the established order endured, allowing even the U.S. and the USSR to find common ground and mitigate hostilities. When the Cold War unexpectedly concluded with the disintegration of both the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe and subsequently the entire Soviet Union, prospects emerged for increased collaboration worldwide, possibly leading toward further democratization.

H istory has a way Clarifying that what appears to be the sole foreseeable outcome at a particular time can actually be just one potential scenario out of many. During the 1990s, few foresaw the rise of revisionist powers—nations viewing the established global framework as fraudulent, merely masking U.S. hegemony alongside allied countries. For these entities, this post-World War II system stood as a barrier to achieving national aspirations; some aimed to revive historical grandeur, regain territories deemed rightful possessions, or assert control over citizens and neighboring areas. Take Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: he has contemplated overturning the Treaty of Trianon, which redistributed significant portions of Hungarian lands to surrounding states following World War I. However, Vladimir Putin stands unrivaled thus far as the ultimate revisionist force. Perhaps even more disconcertingly, criticism against the liberal world order emerged internally within democratic societies through populism. Populist factions linked economic hardships, xenophobia, and disillusionment with local leadership and governance structures to embrace increasingly autocratic policies domestically.

Discontentment and objectives can vary across nations, yet populism thrives globally through the pledge to rectify previous errors. On an international scale, this shift manifests as disdain towards the liberal rule-based system and institutions like the United Nations. Leaders on the far right opt to collaborate with those who share similar views to advance their agendas, often disregarding the impact on others.

[ Yair Rosenberg: Trump is reshaping the globe according to his vision ]

This transformation is nowhere more significant than in the United States, which initially set out as both the idealist architect and central pillar of the post-war system. Under the Trump administration, however, this position has been dismissed as foolish—a stance where the U.S. held back its formidable strength, only to let other nations deplete its resources. In contrast, President Trump advocates leveraging America’s unrivaled economic and military supremacy directly and forcefully, discarding the formalities of global accords along with adherence to internal legal boundaries.

We are currently observing the revival of spheres of influence. Previously, U.S. leaders condemned such practices as remnants of the manipulative Old World that Americans had distanced themselves from. However, the Monroe Doctrine actually established an American sphere of influence by cautioning foreign entities to keep their distance from the Americas. During the Cold War era, although tacitly accepting the Soviets' dominance over Eastern Europe, the United States expanded its sway across the Western bloc. Despite some inconsistencies, America simultaneously championed a more equitable international system, acknowledging smaller nation-states’ sovereignty and aligning with global aspirations for governance geared toward communal welfare rather than merely serving dominant state interests. Nevertheless, this current administration appears unreservedly committed to delineating geopolitical territories amongst major powers and remains indifferent to possible confrontations arising when overlapping zones clash—such as between the U.S. and China within the Pacific region.

The recent leaked proposal To significantly shrink both the State Department and the Foreign Service, then restructure the remnants into four geographic "corps"—namely Eurasia, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Indo-Pacific—marks an initial move towards embracing this segmentation. The inclusion of Canada directly under the purview of the Secretary of State implies that the Trump administration views the entire Western Hemisphere as its primary domain. This was highlighted in a recent development. Time interview The president reiterated his dismissive assertions that Canada was an economic drain on the U.S., adding, "We have nothing to gain from Canada. And my view is that the situation would truly improve only if Canada became our fifty-first state." Meanwhile, in this realignment of global powers, Russia might oversee much of Central Asia along with potentially most or all of Europe—a notion casually belittled by Vice President J.D. Vance and several others. China appears likely to assert dominance across East Asia as well. This trend towards autocratic leaderships around the globe threatens international diplomacy, placing it entirely within the hands of these rulers' caprices, fantasies, and blunders.

Like many times throughout history, events that seem abrupt actually result from gradual developments. Underlying pressures accumulate until they erupt into prominence. The initial months of 2025 have been akin to a film rapidly accelerating, where scenes flash past so quickly that conversation becomes nearly unintelligible. Practices long considered fundamental within the US—such as checks and balances, court deference, and adherence to democratic norms—are now under scrutiny. Given America’s pivotal role in global affairs, these shifts reverberate across continents. Allies in both Asia and Europe brace themselves against potential challenges posed by China and Russia without American support. Meanwhile, in the Americas, a leader whose rhetoric evokes a blend of nineteenth-century imperialism and contemporary Manhattan property magnates discusses annexing territories including Greenland, Panama, and even Canada. Suddenly, concepts such as zones of influence—which were previously academic topics studied solely by historians and theorists—have become stark realities shaping our unpredictable new era.