New world disorder

11/3/2025

‘Presidential elections are a form of madness that comes over us once every four years.’ (Rebecca Solnit)

Observing the 7 weeks old President in news headlines each day often feels like watching a school bully’s behaviour in a playground – or a proverbial bull in a China shop. Perhaps that's what dispensing with any felt need for multilateral relationship or diplomacy looks like. Some cynics argue that, when it came to international relations, ‘relationship’ was always euphemistic anyway: marriages of convenience would have been more appropriate. We're feeling the threat of a divorce.

It looks, to me, like a zero-sum game deal-maker on steroids. A fixation on win-lose outcomes is the preserve of the rich and powerful – or a disturbing trait of a sociopathic tendency. I keep hearing ‘transactional not ideological’ to describe this style. It’s a word play, a claim that self-interested pragmatism is somehow a values-free approach, rather than the actions of a leader who appears to believe breach of trust is a price worth paying for unilateral 'greatness'.

As I witness the flip-flopping of strategy and policy, the mixed-messaging, the alternative facts, I keep asking myself – is this the work of a negotiating genius; someone who wins the game by disorientating the other players, creating maxim instability and insecurity with the unblinking stare of a poker player… or is it a megalomaniac whose outward actions are a terrifying manifestation of internal chaos? Only time will tell. I hope there’ll be enough of the world left to pick up the pieces.

20 Comments

Margitta Sommermann

11/3/2025 09:18:34 pm

I go for megalomaniac advised by megalomusk. What frightens me most is that democracy seems to be too weak to stop such dangerous men.

Nick Wright

12/3/2025 09:18:39 am

Hi Margitta. 'Megalomusk' - that's very clever! Yes, I share your concern about the resilience of democracies to survive in the current geopolitical climate. In case of interest, this short (and deeply sobering) related article is worth a glance: https://www.americanacademy.de/how-democracies-die/

Carla Esteves

12/3/2025 10:07:22 am

NIck, the chaos, the mixed messages, the "me-first" attitude. But in Latin America we know this very well. We have lived it many times. Leaders who think they are the country. Who change the rules as they go. Who see every deal as fight to win, not relationship to maintain. For us, the question is not "Is this genius or madness?" The question is: "Who suffers when great powers play?" When U.S. acts this way, it is not only Europe or China who feel it. It is smaller economies, the ones depending on stability, on trade, on promises that now mean nothing.

We have learned. We adapt. The world adapts. But U.S. should not assume it is too big to fail. History is full of empires who thought that. None of them still here.

12/3/2025 01:59:57 pm

Hi Carla. 'Who suffers when the great powers play?' is a good and important question. The ripple effects of the current geopolitical game-playing are having devastating consequences for many or the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. 'None of them are still here'. Yes - that's sobering and encouraging.

Ranjit Prakash

12/3/2025 10:11:04 am

Hi Nick. America makes big moves and breaks many things then leave others to clean up the mess. This is not new. But before, at least there was some plan. Some stability. Now? Every day is a new shock. One day friend, next day enemy. One day trade deal, next day trade war. India watches. We must be careful. America says, “Buy our weapons.” Then next day, they make deal with enemy. America says, “We stand with democracy.” Then next day, they praise a dictator. What is truth? What is real relationship? We are not fools. The world does not stop because one country decide to change faces every morning. Others will take positions. China waits. Russia waits. One day, America will look around and find an empty table.

12/3/2025 02:01:24 pm

Hi Ranjit. I think you expressed the dilemmas and potential consequences brilliantly. Thank you for that.

Amira Hassan

12/3/2025 10:14:13 am

Hi Nick. It's 'the art of losing friends'. Superpowers don’t stay super by burning bridges. Keep playing bully and soon no one will play with you.

12/3/2025 02:03:29 pm

Hi Amira - yet, not a great way to make friends and influence people in the longer term. Short term gain for long term loss.

Jordan Haines

12/3/2025 10:28:41 am

Great blog Nick! The world is driving me crazy with frustration. The Amazon is burning. The ice caps are melting. Cities are flooding. And we’re arguing about trade deals and military spending? Here’s the thing about climate change: it doesn’t care about politics. You can’t bully a hurricane. You can’t outmaneuver a drought. You can’t negotiate with a rising sea level. While the US pulls out of global climate agreements and rolls back environmental protections ("drill baby drill" - wtf), the rest of the world is fighting for survival. You can play poker with trade. You can gamble with foreign policy. But when it comes to the planet, the house always wins.

12/3/2025 02:10:40 pm

Hi Jordan and thanks for your encouraging feedback. Yes, indeed - amazing too how the world can suddenly come up with all these billions to spend on weapons whilst ignoring far more existential issues for 'lack of funds'. In the face of overwhelming evidence for the devastating consequences of climate change and global warming, when Trump came up with his 'Drill Baby Drill' slogan, I felt my heart sink. 'When it comes to the planet, the house always wins.' So true - and so deeply concerning.

Eleanor Marsh

12/3/2025 10:32:06 am

You hit the nail on the head in this blog, Nick.

Diplomacy is an intricate dance built on trust, patience and the quiet art of reciprocity. What we are witnessing now is not diplomacy, it is arson. The agreements, the careful balancing acts and the subtle gestures that once held fragile relationships together are being tossed carelessly onto the fire. Multilateralism is dismissed as weakness. Compromise is ridiculed. Longstanding partners are treated as adversaries, while actual adversaries are met with bewildering deference! There is no method to this madness. Only the unsettling spectacle of a nation setting fire to the very bridges that carried it to power.

Others will fill the void and when America finally looks up from the ashes, it may find that no one is waiting for it to return.

12/3/2025 02:11:42 pm

Thank you, Eleanor. 'Arson' and 'Ashes'. A very apt metaphor!

Kai Zhang

12/3/2025 10:39:19 am

Call it strategy. Call it chaos. But if you bluff too much, one day no one believes you.

12/3/2025 02:13:39 pm

Hi Kai. Yes indeed. You reminded me of the 'cry wolf' phenomenon: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/maximum-brainpower/201205/cry-wolf-when-experience-becomes-fateful

James Thornton

12/3/2025 10:47:20 am

Hi Nick. The concerns you raised in this blog are strikingly similar to past moments in US history. From Nixon’s Madman Theory in foreign policy to Reagan’s aggressive Cold War rhetoric, we’ve seen leaders embrace chaos as a strategic tool. However, what makes today’s situation more alarming is the digital age’s amplification of every misstep. With social media and 24-hour news cycles, diplomatic gaffes that once unfolded over months now escalate in real time. The world watches, reacts and sometimes retaliates before clarity emerges. If history is any guide, America’s institutions are resilient, but whether they can withstand this level of erratic leadership remains an open question. Keep posting!

12/3/2025 02:22:04 pm

Hi James - and thank you. Yes, that's true. I can think of the Cuban missile crisis as another high-stakes geopolitical game that could have cost the world its very existence. That's a good point about the speed and amplification risks of social media - especially when some political leaders now own social media platforms, and they and others use them as a primary vehicle of communication, messaging and political propaganda.

Mike Rafferty

12/3/2025 10:50:50 am

Hey Nick. Get real. A deal is a deal. People love to complain about "transactional politics" like it’s a dirty word. Newsflash: everything is transactional. Every country, every government, every leader is looking out for their own interests. The only difference is this guy doesn’t pretend otherwise.

Take NATO. Presidents before him begged our allies to pay their fair share but suddenly, when he demands it, oh it’s “dangerous” and “undiplomatic.” Or trade. How many presidents promised to fix bad deals? This one actually does it. You can call it reckless, you can call it crass but you can’t call it ineffective. If anything, the old “relationships” people are so nostalgic for what was just another way of getting taken advantage of.

12/3/2025 02:26:08 pm

Thanks Mike. That's a stimulating challenge. I guess it begs question of what we mean by 'effectiveness'; whether the benefits of achieving such 'effectiveness' by these methods will outweigh the costs and risks; the benefits, costs and risks for whom; and over what timeframe(s).

Sofia Liao

12/3/2025 10:54:44 am

Another thought-provoking piece, Nick. Thank you. Here are my thoughts. While Washington flails, Beijing builds. While alliances fray, Moscow maneuvers. The U.S. has long assumed that its place at the center of global power is secure. But the international order is not a fixed structure. It shifts with the tides of leadership. And right now, those tides are pulling away from America.

Europe is forging a path toward strategic autonomy. The Middle East is recalibrating its partnerships. In Africa and Southeast Asia, China’s economic influence is outpacing Western engagement. The question isn’t really whether America will recover from this chaotic leadership, It’s whether, when the dust settles, the world will still be waiting.

12/3/2025 04:23:59 pm

Hi Sofia and thank you for such encouraging feedback. I agree with you that there are continual geopolitical shifts in the world - some more subtle than others - and that new alliances are continually being formed and old ones changed. Under the current confrontational and chaotic leadership, the USA risks alienating itself from those on whom it depends - perhaps without realising it - for its own future security and prosperity.