Eurasia Press & News
- The dynamics of changing the global order
The global order has undergone significant changes in recent decades, which have been intensified by specific factors.
The emergence of new global powers such as China and India is consolidating their roles as new economic, technological and military superpowers. The competition between the USA and China has reformatted international relations and has fueled trade, political and technological tensions.
In these circumstances, the weakening of multilateralism in its essential form is apparent.
International organizations such as the UN and NATO have faced challenges in addressing new conflicts and climate change. Also, some countries are trying to minimize their impact on national policies.
In this dynamic of political developments, the positioning of neo-fascist movements has taken on worrying proportions. In many countries, populist movements have gained ground, challenging the traditional liberal order. They are in fact more like neo-fascist movements in the guise of populism and extreme nationalism. These movements have influenced global agreements on trade, immigration and international cooperation.
Energy crises such as the one caused by the war in Ukraine, and the challenges of the transition to sustainable sources, have created good ground for neo-fascist movements.
The emergence of neo-fascism seems to remind us of how little we have learned as Western Civilization from modern history. It seems that Madeleine Albrigt’s fear of a possible return in the 1920s and 1930s is true.[1]
In the spring of 1974, at a time when Italy was facing neo-fascism, Primo Levi, the Italian writer of Jewish origin and Holocaust survivor, wrote an essay in the pages of Corriere della Sera entitled “A Past We Thought Would Never Return.”
“Every era has its fascism, and we see the warning signs wherever the concentration of power denies citizens the opportunity and means to express themselves and to act of their own free will. There are many ways to reach this point, and not only through the terror of police intimidation, but by denying and distorting information, undermining justice systems, paralyzing the education system, and spreading in a myriad of subtle ways nostalgia for a world where order reigned and where the security of a privileged few depended on the forced labor and enforced silence of the many.”[2] Is this a past that we believed would never return?! The war in Ukraine and the return of modern fascism on a worrying scale even in a number of Western countries, where democracy was well established, should revive the “heroes of democracy”[3] throughout Europe and elsewhere, said the German philosopher Dieter Thomae.
1.1 The Return of Donald Trump
The return of Donald Trump to the White House, which in the first days is expected to have fundamental consequences not only for democracy in the United States, but for all areas of international relations and cooperation. But “Trump 2.0” will have a particular impact on the Global South.
Consequently, the reorganization of the global economy is in full swing. The prospective conflict with China can now be said to have shaken the geoeconomy.
Together with the war in Ukraine, this shaking of the “tectonic plates” accelerated the establishment of the BRICS.
When tectonic plates shift, the earth trembles. Tsunami sends shock waves around the globe. The global economy has experienced a series of earthquakes that are difficult to compare even for large economies, such as Germany, etc. Consequently, researchers in the field [of economics and its trends for 2025] rightly expect that “the general trend in 2025 will be towards a global recession.”[4] The warning of tariffs on the EU, Mexico and Canada, which de facto means economic war, is straining transatlantic relations. At an informal meeting in Brussels, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that the European Union could “respond to customs policies with customs policies,” adding that “we must and will do so.”[5]
It is clear that the European Union wants to avoid a trade war with US President Trump, but Brussels does not rule out the possibility of retaliating with customs tariffs.
The creation of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and its role in transforming the global order is a topic that has aroused much debate and analysis. The acceleration of the creation of a new world order is often linked to the aspirations of developing countries to review the current economic and political power structures, long dominated by Western countries.
The BRICS represent the largest emerging economies, which aim to create a balance to traditional institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, which have historically been dominated by the US and EU countries.
The BRICS member countries often emphasize the need for a multipolar world order, where power and decision-making are more widely distributed. BRICS, however, is not simply an economic platform, but also a forum for influencing global issues, from climate change to international security.
If BRICS continues to expand and strengthen its structures, it could help create an order where power and resources are distributed more proportionally and equitably between developed and developing countries. However, challenges such as political and economic divergences among member countries could affect the success of this initiative.
Like Europe, most Asian countries are dependent on China’s dynamism for their economic development and on US guarantees for their security. This fact is emphasized in particular by German scholars. Therefore, to varying degrees, they resist the pressure to choose a side. However, it remains to be seen whether it will be possible to escape the pull of geoeconomic bipolarization in the long term.[6]
Donald Trump has meanwhile won the 2024 presidential election and will be inaugurated again as US president on January 20, 2025. Even before taking office, he managed to impose the agreement between Israel and Hamas for the release of hostages. In the meantime, he has signed a mountain of legal acts that prove that he remains determined to fulfill the promises he made during the campaign. His return to the White House is already showing that it is expected to bring some important changes to the global order:
“America First” foreign policy: Trump has promoted a unilateral approach and minimized the US commitment to traditional alliances such as NATO. His return could strengthen American isolationism.
Resuming tough stances towards China: Trump is expected to continue trade and technology policies towards China, deepening the economic divide between the two countries and its global influence.
Changing approaches to climate and trade: With a history of withdrawing from agreements like the Paris climate accord, a return to it could set back global efforts to combat climate change.
Reshaping international relations: Trump’s approach to strategic partners and adversaries could shift the balance of power, increasing instability in some regions.
However, changing the global order is a complex process, driven by multiple forces, and Trump’s return is already showing signs of intensifying these dynamics. While some countries may benefit from a more decentralized and national-interest-based order, others may suffer the consequences of a more fragmented and polarized politics. One thing is certain: global politics will continue to be in transition, and future decisions will have long-term impacts on international stability.
- Greenland and geopolitical positioning
With Donald Trump’s recent statements about the possibility of annexing the island of Greenland and the “Anschluss” of Canada, the Western Hemisphere is gradually sliding towards a period of recalibration and revision of transatlantic relations. Trump’s presidency will not succeed in breaking the Western alliance on its axis, but it will strain essential relations and cause a kind of stress test for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the relationship, in a broader sense, between the United States and the European Union.
In these circumstances, Western strategists are left to develop steps to manage mutual interdependence.
Donald Trump’s request to buy Greenland from Denmark was also made in 2019, which sparked an international debate, reflecting the combination of geopolitics, economics and climate issues. Although the idea was immediately rejected by the Danish and Greenlandic authorities, it is of great importance for understanding the changes in the global geopolitical map.
On both sides of the Atlantic, it seems that goals, definitions of interests, and value systems are changing so drastically that “the gap between the United States and Europe […] is likely to widen over time.”[7]
President-elect Donald Trump, in his statement, did not rule out the use of military force or economic action to take control of Greenland.
“We need Greenland for national security reasons. I’ve been told that for a long time, long before I ran for president. People really don’t know if Denmark has any legal rights to the island. But if they do, they should give it up because it’s about our national security and for the good of the free world. There are Chinese ships, Russian ships, and we will not allow this to continue,”[8] said President-elect Trump, among other things.
The repetition of that idea now almost eighty years ago [December 1946], when the United States was discussing the possibility of purchasing the island of Greenland from Denmark for $100 million in gold – the “cleanest” solution, as it was called at the time. The logic that preceded this political will may have been completely different eight decades ago, but the strategic judgment in the sphere of economic interests and geopolitical positioning is exactly the same as that of Trump today.
“The money is abundant, Greenland is completely worthless to Denmark, and control of Greenland is essential to the security of the United States,”[9] an internal State Department memorandum stated at the time.
With this public statement, Trump is following in the footsteps of Harry Truman. But if former President Truman made the proposal in deep discretion, in secret communication, at a meeting of the foreign ministers of the two countries in New York, Trump does it in his own style. At that time, the American offer was $ 100 million in gold, equivalent to about $ 1.6 billion today. As is known, this offer was only made public when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten came across historical documents and reported on it 45 years later.
US President Donald Trump has caused extraordinary turbulence by publishing the idea of a possible “Anschluss” of Greenland to the United States of America. “For the purposes of national security and freedom throughout the world”, it is an absolute necessity that Greenland become the property of the United States, Trump wrote in the most pathetic style possible just before Christmas. He reiterated this position in the meantime, not ruling out the use of coercive force, openly threatening Denmark, within whose territorial integrity this Arctic island is.
Greenland is geographically part of North America; it was colonized by Denmark in the 18th century and has had an autonomous status since 1979, which was extended in 2009. The territory is rich in natural resources. These include oil, gas, gold, diamonds, uranium, zinc and lead.
Greenland is the largest island in the world, and has a strategic location in the Arctic.
For the United States, Greenland has strategic military importance due to the Thule Air Base, a center for missile monitoring and defense.
As Geoff Dabelko, professor of security and the environment at Ohio University, explains, the world’s largest island now occupies a “central place in geopolitical and geoeconomic competition in many ways”,[10] but above all because of the interest expressed by Russia and China in this transport route, which is partly related to climate change.
The US interest in Greenland also reflects concerns about the growing presence of Russia and China in the Arctic, as they compete for access to the region’s sea lanes and rich resources.
The Kremlin recently announced that it is following “very closely” the “dramatic” rhetoric of US President Donald Trump, who has threatened to annex Greenland, a larger area of which Russia has taken over the upper part. “The Arctic is an area of our national interests (…), we are closely following the rather dramatic development of the situation, which, thank God, has so far remained at the level of statements,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, adding that Russia wants to maintain peace and stability there.[11]
The United States’ reaction to this statement was immediate.
The US has no immediate plans to increase its military presence in Greenland, the US embassy in Copenhagen said the same day, after US President-elect Donald Trump renewed his interest in taking control of the Arctic island.
Donald Trump’s statement has meanwhile caused a wave of reactions in European capitals as well.
The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, following Donald Trump’s expansionist ambitions in the Danish territory, said that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Greenland must be respected. “Greenland is part of Denmark (…) we must respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Greenland,” Kallas stressed within the same timeframe.
Meanwhile, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the same day that he was sure that for US President-elect Donald Trump, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, although he also said that Trump’s rhetoric could be destabilizing.
“We have known since Donald Trump’s first term that the intensity of his rhetoric and sometimes the unpredictability of what he says can be a destabilizing factor,” [12] Lammy told BBC Radio, responding to a question about Trump’s intentions to make Greenland part of the United States.
President Donald Trump seems to have no regard for President Theodore Roosevelt’s advice, when he advised leaders to “speak softly and carry a big stick.”[12] In this case, Trump did the opposite: he warned of the annexation of Greenland and forced American diplomacy to correct its mistakes.
After this statement, it seems clear that no one in Europe has any illusions about the scale of what awaits Europe. Meanwhile, what can be expected for America is not only a return to nationalism and isolationism, but also an entry into unpredictability. Therefore, there is an increasing concern about how allies should plan foreign policy under these conditions?
Donald Trump’s statement on Greenland is more likely to weaponize Europe’s security dependence. Meanwhile, as is known, weakness creates the potential for blackmail. Concessions in trade policy, for example, can be easily achieved by pointing out the asymmetry in defense policy. This is the lesson of Trump’s first term in office.[14]
It has long been clear in German academic circles that Europe and Germany should count less on American support and stand more on their own two feet. But the question has always been whether this process would be harmonious and based on solidarity or divisive and antagonistic. This issue has never been treated with the seriousness it deserves in Albanian academic and political circles.
2.1 Impact on the geopolitical map
Polarization in the Arctic: The Arctic region is becoming an arena of confrontation between great powers. The US, Russia, and China are seeing the region as an opportunity for strategic and economic dominance.
Raising Sovereignty Issues: The attempt to purchase Greenland has highlighted the importance of self-determination for indigenous peoples, strengthening Greenlanders’ demands for greater autonomy from Denmark.
Climate Change and the Global Economy: Global warming is transforming the Arctic, turning it into a key region for natural resources and international shipping.
Although Trump’s request failed, it set a precedent that great powers could attempt to renegotiate borders and sovereignty through economic offers. Moreover, it reopened the debate over control of resources and strategic routes in a world of increased global competition.
In this context, continuous monitoring of developments in the Arctic is vital to understanding how climate change and geopolitical interests will affect the global order of the 21st century.
2.2 The same Danish response – as in 1946
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen wasted no time in requesting a sit-down with US President Donald Trump following his comments on the possible annexation of Greenland by the United States. Her office has contacted Trump, Frederiksen told reporters after a meeting with the leaders of the parties represented in the Danish parliament.
Frederiksen also reiterated that she does not believe that Trump will attempt to annex Greenland by force. “We have no reason to believe that this will happen,”[15] she said.
The difference in this framework of US-Danish confrontations is the US stance yesterday and today. The United States responded to Denmark’s firm refusal in December 1946 with a tone of measured diplomacy. The Truman administration refrained from any possible threats.
Trump, meanwhile, did not throw in the towel upon hearing the Danish refusal. On the contrary, he questioned whether the island belonged to Denmark under international law, openly undermining the fundamental principle of the world order – the right to territorial inviolability of a state. Clearly, this positioning is in line with the clashes in the geopolitical sphere and the expected positioning within the framework of the creation of a new world order. This message, more than with Denmark, has to do with China and Russia. You can do what you want with Taiwan, Ukraine… while I have these strategic goals that I consider to be a sphere of American strategic interest.
Possession of a territory, it is clear from the message in question, is in the function of the national defense strategy. This approach, one of the most famous geopoliticians of the time, Peter Zeihan, in his blog, unequivocally calls it the new American imperialism.[16]
Returning to the idea of purchasing the Greenland islands, which was discussed in 1946 on the eve of the division of the world into two powerful political-military blocs [NATO vs. Warsaw Pact], when the Cold War was beginning, brings us to the expected developments right now, when the first markings of the redistribution of areas of strategic interest and control of essential areas on the geopolitical chessboard are being made.
The Truman administration had finally abandoned the idea of purchasing the island because it was seen as possible to achieve the same goals in another way.
This strategy that Truman followed made possible the 1951 agreement, through which Denmark granted the US the right to build the Thule Air Base in northwestern Greenland. That base was used and is still used today, among other things, for the early detection of enemy missile launches. That base still exists today and since last year has been called the Pituffik Space Base. Meanwhile, the fact that Denmark had in the meantime joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], making the island an integral part of the defense structure against any possible attack by Moscow, made the idea of buying the island irrelevant – non-existent.
But what are the real reasons why Trump is bringing this idea back into the debate today? It seems that this idea, in addition to marking the geopolitical chessboard, had another purpose – that of shocking the Danes and Europeans in general, which is related to the idea of guaranteeing cooperation in the fierce competition for the division of interests that the creation of the new order is imposing.
With the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Europe has rapidly entered the terrain imposed by the trilemma of inevitable deindustrialization, shaky decarbonization and worsening geopolitical tensions. Consequently, Europe has imposed its support on Washington, since there is no other alternative.
Trump’s rhetoric and transactional diplomacy could force Europe to do more for itself on defense, exploring ways to reassess its defense responsibilities, but without undermining Washington’s security guarantees and partnering in both industrial and energy cooperation. This dynamic, he says, “would force Europe to adopt a more pragmatic approach, balancing its aspirations for strategic autonomy with a recognition of its dependence on U.S. capabilities.”[17] While European governments are calling for unity in the face of a Trump presidency, in reality cracks are already appearing. At least three distinct camps are emerging in Europe: the conformists, the sovereignists, and the right-wing populists. The conformists are led by the Poles. They are likely to accept Trump’s willingness to re-engage bilaterally with Europe.
The sovereignist group is led by France. They do not just want to strengthen Europe; this also applies to the assemblers. But the sovereignists want to go further. They want to distance Europe from America and establish the continent as a politically independent pole in what they see as a multipolar world order. They believe that an unreliable America can no longer be considered the anchor of Europe’s security. This group is still small. It is likely to grow once Trump takes action.[18]
Hungary is at the forefront of the right-wing populists. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán believes that his time to lead Europe is approaching, because Trump’s election will cause a domino effect in Europe, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Although they are ideologically close, this is unlikely to be a union without tensions.
- The Most Optimal Position of the Albanian Nation
The best position for Albania and Kosovo in a potential transatlantic clash would be to maintain a careful balance and a pragmatic diplomatic approach.
Albania and Kosovo are small states that rely heavily on strategic alliances for security and economic development. NATO and the EU remain important pillars for both countries.
The importance of NATO for regional security should be constantly emphasized and every effort to maintain unity within the alliance should be supported.
Some key points for an optimal position would include:
Alignment with the Western Alliance: Albania and Kosovo are small states that rely heavily on strategic alliances for security and economic development. NATO and the EU remain important pillars for both countries.
The importance of NATO for regional security should be constantly emphasized and every effort to maintain unity within the alliance should be supported.
Strengthening Relations with the US: The US has been a key supporter of Kosovo in the independence process and a strategic partner of Albania. Albania and Kosovo, as the sole representative body of the Albanian Nation, should maintain strong relations with the US, maintaining trust and close cooperation in military, political and economic matters.
European Integration as a Strategic Priority: Albania’s EU membership and Kosovo’s aspirations for European integration should remain a priority. Cooperation with the EU on issues of the rule of law, democratic reforms and economic development is vital.
In the event of tensions between the EU and the US, taking a position that could harm integration prospects should be avoided.
Promoting Regional Stability: Albania and Kosovo can use their position to act as a factor of stability in the Balkans. A proactive approach to regional dialogue and cooperation can help increase diplomatic leverage.
Active Neutrality and Smart Diplomacy: If tensions escalate, maintaining a neutral but active position, encouraging dialogue between the EU and the US, would be wiser. The importance of transatlantic unity in facing global challenges, such as security, climate change and economic development, can be emphasized.
Overall, Albania and Kosovo should play the role of reliable partners, avoiding polarization and promoting unity within the Western alliance.
Conclusion
The world system and order are at a crossroads. The war in Ukraine and China’s open tendencies for the “anschluss” of Taiwan have exposed growing paradoxes, where the rules imposed by the world order created after World War II are experiencing real collapse. In particular, the intention to restore geopolitics through the occupation of Ukraine and thus the restructuring of Russia as a world superpower has a real chance of yielding results that challenge traditional expectations. “This dichotomy reflects a world in flux, where geopolitics resembles a Rubik’s Cube – any attempt to solve one dimension inevitably disrupts the others,”[19] rightly concludes geopolitical strategist Velina Tchakarova of the Observer Research Foundation. In these circumstances, when uncertainty is becoming a defining characteristic of the era, states must shift from strategies of dominance to those of adaptability and sustainable development, emphasizing resilience over rigidity.
