We are witnessing the fundamental reshaping of the liberal world order that has defined global politics since the end of the Second World War. For the first time, the United States is fully embracing an America First, America Alone mentality. The message is clear: Our way or the highway. You’re either with us or against us.

Gone are the days of a predictable transatlantic alliance. Under the Trump administration, one rule prevails: Might is right. The world is shifting from a unipolar structure to a multipolar one, where emerging middle powers will be forced to pick a side—either aligning with the U.S. or pushing back against it.

Who stands to gain, and who will suffer in this new global paradigm?

Winners

United States

As the world’s sole superpower since the so-called “end of history,” the U.S. is uniquely positioned to thrive in a might is right environment. With hundreds of military bases spanning the globe, it has both the reach and the muscle to enforce its will. And it’s doing just that.

Consider the dramatic shifts in policy: withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, suspending WHO membership, disregarding International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings, sanctioning International Criminal Court (ICC) judges, blocking foreign aid, and weakening the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Few administrations have taken such sweeping and consequential actions in such a short time.

Why is the U.S. taking this path? Donald Trump, at his core, views international relations through the lens of a dealmaker. He has long questioned why the U.S. should police the world without tangible returns. After all, recipient nations of American aid often vote against U.S. interests at the United Nations. American businesses suffer under the FCPA while competitors bypass its restrictions. The U.S. also maintains massive trade deficits with its allies. Trump’s policies are designed to address these perceived imbalances.

He has famously called tariffs the most beautiful word in the English language, seeing them as a means to reduce dependence on Asian supply chains. His foreign policy is transactional. A prime example: strongarming Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into a natural resources deal while his country fights for survival.

Russia

Perhaps no country has benefited more from the might is right doctrine than Russia. Trump’s rhetoric increasingly echoes Kremlin talking points, setting the stage for a geopolitical realignment that plays directly into Vladimir Putin’s hands.
Stage one for Putin? A negotiated end to the war in Ukraine—one that excludes Ukraine from the discussion altogether. At present, Russia appears poised to retain its territorial gains in the east and south, making few, if any, concessions.

Stage two? Engineering a regime change in Kyiv. Russia will undoubtedly attempt to manipulate Ukraine’s elections—just as it has done elsewhere. Consider Romania, where the Constitutional Court annulled the first round of the November presidential election, citing Russian interference, illicit campaign funding, and TikTok algorithm manipulation. This is the model.

Despite repeated electoral meddling, Russia faces little in the way of meaningful consequences. In cases like Georgia, interference has even been rewarded, replacing independent leaders with Kremlin-aligned puppets. With the U.S. stepping back from global leadership, Putin has little reason to fear pushback.

Israel

Confident in Trump’s unwavering support, Israel has been playing an aggressive hand. In recent months, it has helped topple President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon, and significantly diminished Hamas’s power in Gaza—all while strategically undermining Iran’s influence in the region.

Effectively given carte blanche by Washington, Israel is systematically eliminating threats. The long-discussed two-state solution is no longer even on the table.

Saudi Arabia, too, has positioned itself as a beneficiary. Hosting the first U.S.-Russia summit marked a diplomatic coup. However, Riyadh faces pressure from Trump to join an Abrahamic Alliance—a move designed to further shore up Israel’s security. Whether Saudi Arabia will comply remains an open question, particularly in light of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Losers

Europe

Europe is the most immediate casualty of this fractured transatlantic order. The U.S. has long warned its European allies to invest more in their own defense, a message dating back to the Kennedy administration. For 60 years, Europe largely ignored these warnings. Now, the consequences are unavoidable.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s pledge to raise defense spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 is a rare moment of consensus in UK politics. If Europe wants to be taken seriously by the U.S., it must prove itself capable of defending its own interests. In a might is right world, Trump only respects those who can hold their ground.

Yet even with increased defense spending, the so-called special relationship between the U.S. and the UK is unlikely to recover. Starmer’s political ideology is fundamentally at odds with Trump’s. His diplomatic maneuvering—inviting Trump to meet King Charles—was a calculated move, tapping into Trump’s well-documented admiration for the British monarchy. Whether it can salvage the relationship remains to be seen.

Iran

Israel’s recent military successes have dealt a major blow to Iran’s regional ambitions. Its network of proxies—long central to its influence—has been significantly weakened. The idea of a nuclear deterrent is losing its strategic appeal. Tehran understands that deploying nuclear weapons would lead to its annihilation. A deterrent that invites existential destruction is hardly a deterrent at all.

This moment presents an opportunity. Rather than continuing to finance militant groups, Iran could redirect its resources toward economic revitalization and domestic stability. A shift is already visible across the Islamic world, from Syria to Saudi Arabia, where ideological expansion is taking a backseat to internal development. Iran would be wise to follow suit.

Of course, dismantling its nuclear program would require ironclad security guarantees—something Iran will demand to avoid Libya’s fate. A new security architecture, brokered by the U.S., Russia, and China, could provide a pathway forward.

The China Question

And then, there’s China—the elephant in the room. At present, it remains neither a winner nor a loser in this new world order.

Economically, China has the means to counter U.S. sanctions and tariffs. Logic suggests that Washington would be better served by pursuing cooperation rather than confrontation. But Trump’s foreign policy rarely adheres to conventional logic.

Beijing is undoubtedly watching Trump’s handling of Ukraine. His might is right doctrine has validated Russia’s invasion, exposing the hypocrisy of Western rhetoric that differentiates between Ukraine and Palestine. The key question: Will the same logic apply if China moves on Taiwan?

An outright invasion remains improbable—for now. An economic blockade is a more likely strategy. Similarly, North Korea may seize this moment to test South Korea’s defenses. While unlikely, in this new world order, the improbable should never be mistaken for the impossible.

The Munich Security Conference marked a turning point—a stark reality check for the world’s so-called losers. The question is whether they will adapt. If they fail to recalibrate, conflict becomes inevitable.

Make no mistake—this shift is not just about Trump. Trumpism will persist long after the 47th president leaves office. Trump has tapped into something deeply embedded in the American psyche.

Might is right is now the defining principle of global affairs. Those who refuse to adjust do so at their own peril.