US Predatory World Order Undermines Alliances, Pushes Nations to China

This conversation with Mark Landler of The New York Times offers a stark look at how a leader's transactional, "might makes right" foreign policy can unravel decades of established international order, pushing allies toward new, potentially less stable partnerships. The non-obvious implication is that a perceived weakening of American leadership doesn't just create a vacuum, but actively drives former allies to seek alternative power structures, potentially benefiting rivals like China. This analysis is crucial for policymakers, business leaders operating internationally, and anyone trying to understand the seismic shifts in global alliances. It reveals how immediate demands for dominance can sow the seeds of long-term strategic disadvantage for the very nation pursuing them.

The Unraveling of the Rules-Based Order: Greenland as a Catalyst

The Greenland gambit, initially dismissed by many as a peculiar real estate fantasy, rapidly escalated into a full-blown geopolitical crisis. What began as President Trump's stated desire to "own" Greenland, framed through the lens of a real estate developer seeking to expand American territory, quickly revealed a deeper, more unsettling philosophy: a world governed by raw power, where "might makes right." This transactional approach, as Mark Landler explains, fundamentally challenged the established international order that had provided a framework for global cooperation and stability for decades. The immediate aftermath saw not just diplomatic tension, but a palpable fear among European allies that the very foundations of their security and prosperity were being eroded from within their most critical alliance.

The core of the conflict, as Landler illustrates, wasn't about the strategic or economic necessity of owning Greenland--the US already enjoyed significant access and cooperation under existing treaties. Instead, it was about a fundamental shift in how America, under Trump, viewed its role in the world. The analogy of a real estate developer seeking to acquire territory, while seemingly simplistic, captured a visceral desire for ownership that bypassed the nuances of existing international agreements and mutual defense pacts. This approach, Landler notes, was amplified by events like the military operation in Venezuela, signaling to allies that Trump's pronouncements were not mere bluster but indicators of a serious intent to exert unilateral power.

"Ownership is very important. You know, why is ownership important here? Because it's what I feel is psychologically needed for success."

-- Donald Trump (as quoted in the transcript)

This insistence on ownership, on a personal psychological need for control, created a cascading effect. Denmark, a NATO ally, found itself directly threatened by its most powerful partner. The response from other European nations, initially a show of solidarity with Denmark, quickly morphed into a broader crisis. The threat of 10% tariffs on Denmark, and the potential reopening of all trade deals with the European Union, transformed a geopolitical standoff into an economic one. This escalation demonstrated a willingness to weaponize economic power, not just to achieve a specific territorial goal, but seemingly to enforce a new, more coercive global dynamic.

Davos and the Dawn of a Predatory World

The annual World Economic Forum in Davos, typically a venue for discussing global cooperation, became the stage for a stark confrontation. President Trump's speech there, far from reassuring allies, doubled down on his "might makes right" philosophy. He presented a world where only the strong survive, and where the United States, by virtue of its power, was entitled to dictate terms. This was not a negotiation; it was a declaration of dominance, delivered with what Landler describes as "contempt and vitriol." The message was clear: nations could either comply or face consequences, a stark departure from the principles of partnership that had underpinned NATO.

"We probably won't get anything unless they decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be frankly unstoppable. But I won't do that. But notably, he also took military action off the table. It's the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it."

-- Donald Trump (as quoted in the transcript)

The European response in Davos signaled a critical turning point. After a period of attempting to flatter, mollify, and cajole, leaders began to push back. Landler describes this as a shift through the "five stages of grief," moving from denial and anger to bargaining and depression, and finally arriving at "acceptance"--an acceptance not of Trump's worldview, but of the reality that the old order was under severe threat. This was particularly evident in the speeches of leaders like Emmanuel Macron, who spoke of preferring partners to bullies, and most strikingly, Mark Carney.

Carney's speech at Davos, described as "extremely significant," articulated the profound implications of Trump's approach. He declared that the "fiction of a rules-based world order is now over." For decades, this order, while imperfect and at times hypocritical, had provided a degree of stability and mutual benefit, particularly for smaller and middle powers. Carney argued that the United States, the architect and guarantor of this order, was now actively undermining it. This rupture, he posited, meant that nations could no longer rely on the US for security and stability. The implication was profound: if the hegemon was turning against the system it helped create, then other nations, particularly those in Europe, would have to find new ways to secure their interests, potentially by drawing closer to other great powers, such as China.

The Unintended Consequence: Pushing Allies Towards Rivals

The most significant downstream effect of this transactional foreign policy, as Landler outlines, is the unintended consequence of pushing allies into the arms of rivals. Trump's stated goal was to decouple the world from China's influence. However, by demonstrating that reliance on the United States was becoming increasingly unreliable and even adversarial, his policies inadvertently created a strong incentive for other nations to seek alternative partnerships. If the American camp is no longer a secure harbor, then balancing interests and hedging against uncertainty by engaging more deeply with China becomes a pragmatic, if not inevitable, strategy.

This dynamic creates a feedback loop. As European nations, Canadians, and others forge deeper ties with China out of necessity, they reduce their dependence on the US, precisely the opposite of the administration's stated objective. The "great coalition" that successive American administrations sought to build to compete with China is, in effect, being dismantled by a policy that alienates those very potential coalition members. The world, as Carney articulated, is becoming "openly predatory," and in such a world, nations must adapt to survive.

"We now live in an openly predatory world. The powerful have their power. We have something too, the capacity to stop pretending."

-- Mark Carney (as quoted in the transcript)

The challenge for these middle powers, caught between a potentially unreliable US and a rising China, is immense. They must navigate a more dangerous and fragmented global landscape. While Europe possesses significant economic and diplomatic power, building an independent security architecture to replace the American umbrella would take decades and require difficult domestic choices, such as reallocating resources from social welfare programs to defense. Furthermore, the economic leverage Europe possesses, such as the "bazooka" of anti-coercion measures, carries its own risks, potentially triggering calamitous retaliatory tariffs from the US.

Ultimately, the Greenland saga, despite its resolution into a tentative "off-ramp," exposed a fundamental unraveling of NATO's underlying principles. When the alliance's linchpin member poses a direct threat to another member, the very notion of mutual defense is called into question. While the immediate crisis may have been averted, the underlying reality--that the animating theories behind NATO have been challenged--remains. This leaves Europe in a precarious position, forced to confront a future where it must increasingly rely on its own capabilities and forge new, complex relationships in a world where the traditional power structures are in flux. The delayed payoff for Europe, Landler suggests, will be the hard work of building its own sphere of influence and navigating a world where great powers divide the globe, a world that Trump's actions have, paradoxically, accelerated into existence.

Key Action Items

• Immediate Action (Next Quarter): European nations should convene to assess their collective vulnerabilities and identify areas for increased security cooperation independent of direct US leadership, focusing on shared threats like Russian aggression.
• Immediate Action (Next Quarter): Businesses with significant international operations should map their supply chain and market dependencies on both the US and China, identifying potential risks and diversification opportunities.
• Immediate Action (Next Quarter): Policymakers should initiate dialogue with allies regarding the development of robust economic defense mechanisms, such as coordinated responses to coercive trade practices, while carefully assessing the risks of retaliation.
• Longer-Term Investment (12-18 Months): European countries should begin the difficult process of assessing and potentially reallocating public resources to bolster independent defense capabilities, acknowledging the generational timescale required.
• Longer-Term Investment (12-18 Months): Nations should actively explore and cultivate pragmatic partnerships with a wider range of global actors, including China, not as a replacement for existing alliances, but as a strategy to hedge against geopolitical uncertainty and economic coercion.
• Discomfort Now for Advantage Later: Leaders must prepare for domestic political backlash when advocating for increased defense spending or potentially challenging economic relationships, framing these as necessary steps for long-term national security and economic resilience.
• Discomfort Now for Advantage Later: Publicly acknowledge the shift from a rules-based order to a more predatory global dynamic, preparing citizens and businesses for increased volatility and the need for greater self-reliance and strategic partnerships.