Reflecting about the New Global Order: moving fast and full of complexities

 

A World of Converging Uncertainties: An Analysis of the Post-Cold War Global Order

Executive Summary

Victor Ângelo's texts and public interventions are based on a compelling synthesis of the major trends shaping the contemporary global landscape. Its central thesis posits that the international system is at a critical inflection point, moving beyond the post-Cold War era of cooperation into a new, more fragmented, and perilous phase. This transition is defined by the convergence of three primary trends: the resurgence of great power competition, driven by the erosion of traditional strategic safeguards and the emergence of new geopolitical theaters; a profound crisis of multilateralism, as international institutions struggle with financial shortfalls and a loss of consensus; and a fundamental shift in United States foreign policy toward a transactional, "America First" model. His analysises demonstrate that these elements are not isolated issues but are causally linked in a "polycrisis" where a breakdown in one area exacerbates vulnerabilities in others. It is his view that the world is now navigating a complex and uncertain period where old frameworks are no longer sufficient to understand, lead and manage new, multifaceted challenges.

1. The Resurgence of Geopolitical Competition

The defining feature of the present global order is the return of great power rivalry, both through traditional means and by making use of the rapidly evolving digital instruments. This dynamic is manifesting not only in the breakdown of long-standing agreements but also in the militarization of new strategic regions and the employment of new forms of diplomacy that bypass traditional norms. The use of A.I. reinforces the race and creates a narrative that is most disturbing. 

1.1 The Erosion of Strategic Stability and Arms Control

The post-Cold War era saw a concerted effort to build a web of arms control treaties aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear conflict. Today, this system is in a state of selective decay, creating new risks and highlighting a shift in strategic priorities.

The precarious status of the New START Treaty is a central element of this instability. Officially known as the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, New START is currently the only major remaining arms control agreement between the two nations. The treaty places verifiable limits on strategic offensive weapons, including deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. Both sides are obligated to remain at or below specific aggregate limits: 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles, 1,550 nuclear warheads, and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. This treaty is particularly important as it constrains the development of new Russian long-range nuclear weapons like the Avangard and Sarmat that are capable of reaching the U.S. homeland.

The treaty's verification and transparency measures are critical for U.S. national security. These provisions include up to 18 on-site inspections per year, biannual data exchanges, and regular notifications on strategic exercises and new weapon systems. These measures provide a vital window into Russian intercontinental-range nuclear forces and operations, giving the U.S. crucial intelligence that would otherwise be unavailable. Without them, U.S. knowledge and confidence in its assessments of Russia's nuclear forces would decrease, complicating decisions about its own force structure. The treaty was initially in force for 10 years and was extended through February 4, 2026. The maintenance of this treaty, despite a deeply adversarial relationship, suggests that its verifiable limits on the most direct and existential threats are considered too important to abandon.

In stark contrast, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has completely dissolved, a development that signifies a new, more confrontational era of open rearmament. Signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the INF Treaty banned all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. It was hailed as a major arms control achievement that ended a dangerous chapter of the Cold War and served as a crucial "firebreak" against escalation. The treaty's collapse began when the U.S. formally withdrew in 2019 under President Donald Trump, citing Russia's violation of the terms by developing and deploying the 9M729 (SSC-8) missile system. Russia, for its part, officially abandoned its self-imposed moratorium on the treaty in the wake of deploying the Oreshnik missile, a weapon with a range that violates the defunct treaty, and after nuclear threats were issued by former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. This breakdown has led to a reciprocal military buildup. The U.S. plans "episodic deployments" of intermediate-range missiles to Germany and has already deployed Typhon missile launchers in the Philippines, while Russia has confirmed the deployment of the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile to Belarus, which borders three NATO members.

The divergent fates of these two treaties illuminate a fundamental shift in strategic logic. While New START, with its focus on verifiable limitations of intercontinental threats to the U.S. homeland, remains in force, the INF, with its broader scope and perceived vulnerabilities, has been discarded. The dissolution of the INF Treaty has been accompanied by a dangerous escalation in nuclear rhetoric from both sides, increasing the risk of miscalculation in an era with fewer safeguards. This rearmament and the increasingly adversarial posture reflect a strategic worldview articulated by Vladimir Putin, whose foreign policy has long been aimed at bolstering Russia's status as a world player and countering what he perceives as Western dominance. This situation is often referred to as a "Cold War II," where renewed competition is once again the defining feature of great power relations.

1.2 The Arctic as a New Front

The Arctic, once envisioned as a zone of peace and cooperation, is rapidly transforming into a new theater for strategic competition. This shift is driven by the interconnected forces of climate change, vast economic potential, and a history of military importance.

The primary catalyst for this transformation is climate change. The Arctic, previously covered in permanent pack ice, is becoming far more accessible, making fabled sea routes—such as the North Sea Route and the Northwest Passage—a realistic prospect for global shipping. These routes could reduce transit times by as much as a third, opening up new avenues for commerce. The region also holds significant economic riches, with estimates of approximately $1 trillion in minerals, 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas reserves, and 13% of its undiscovered oil.

The region's historical importance as a Cold War theater for intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers is now being revisited in a new context of strategic competition. Today, the Arctic is a territory for competition among Russia, the United States, and China, serving as a "critical ancillary theater that enables strategic outcomes elsewhere". Russia holds a significant military advantage in the region, having modernized its Arctic military bases, deployed defense missiles, and upgraded its submarine fleet over the past decade. Russia and China combined operate around 45 icebreakers, a stark contrast to the United States, which faces a significant "icebreaker gap" with only two aging icebreakers and one commercially procured vessel in its fleet.

The United States Air Force Arctic Strategy acknowledges that the region’s capacity as a strategic buffer is eroding, which has a direct effect on global military strategy. By securing NATO's northern flank and limiting Russian naval operations in the Arctic, the U.S. can reduce the risk of a two-front maritime conflict, thereby freeing up forces to maintain pressure on China in the Indo-Pacific region. This demonstrates a clear and interconnected strategic link between events in the Arctic and the broader competition in the Indo-Pacific. Furthermore, the breakdown of cooperation between Russia and the seven other Arctic states within the Arctic Council has prompted Russia to pivot eastward, doubling down on collaboration with non-Arctic strategic competitors like China. This strategic realignment is a direct consequence of Western sanctions and diplomatic isolation, showing that Russia is adapting by seeking new partners for technology and investment from nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.

1.3 The Trump-Putin Summit in Alaska: An Exercise in Transactional Diplomacy

The recent summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska is a central feature of the new, uncertain international environment. This event is a defining moment for the Trump administration's foreign policy and a significant test of the established international order.

The summit took place on August 15, 2025, in Alaska, with the primary objective of negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine. The meeting was set against a backdrop of deeply conflicting peace proposals. Russia has reportedly floated a ceasefire plan that would involve Ukraine ceding significant territory in the Donbas region—Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—in exchange for an end to the fighting and U.S. assistance in securing international recognition of these annexations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, however, has consistently rejected any territorial concessions, and the Ukrainian constitution requires a national referendum for any territorial changes.

By meeting directly with Putin and sidelining European nations and Ukraine, the U.S. implicitly validated Russia's strategy of bypassing established international norms and alliances. This approach creates a precedent for resolving international disputes through coercion rather than consensus. The exclusion of Ukraine is not merely a diplomatic snub; it is a core element of Putin’s strategy to secure a deal with Trump that can be presented to Kyiv and other European capitals as a fait accompli.

The choice of Alaska as the venue carries its own symbolic and strategic significance. Some voices in Russia view it as a reminder of "annexed Russian land" and a symbol of a trade relationship Moscow hopes to revive with Washington. It is also seen as a practical arena for cooperation on future economic ventures in the Arctic, a region where the economic interests of both countries intersect. Both leaders are entering the talks under significant domestic pressure. For Trump, the aim was to bolster his image as a global leader. For Putin, the war has created mounting economic challenges as a result of the sanctions. 

1.4 The A.I. as a critical instrument in the superpower competition

AI is not just a technology—it is an economic multiplier. Nations that effectively integrate AI into their economies gain advantages in productivity, innovation, and global influence. The race for AI supremacy is, therefore, a race for future economic leadership, with profound implications for global trade, employment, and national power.

The competition in artificial intelligence (AI) between the United States and China is widely viewed as a critical component of their broader geopolitical rivalry. This contest is seen as an international struggle for power that will significantly shape global power dynamics in the coming decades . The race for AI dominance is often framed as a direct competition between these two superpowers, which some believe will define the future of global power . This technological race intersects with geopolitics, inevitably contributing to future conflicts. .

Copy

Ask

Explain