The Age of “unpeace”: How Trump, Putin, and Xi Redefined Global Order
Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump is often viewed as a figure of disruption, whose policies leave international relations worse than before. Yet, his approach reflects the complexities of our current era, where conventional norms are constantly challenged.
The concept of an “Age of Unpeace” highlights the need to reassess international relations in an era defined by hyper-connectivity.Traditional institutions designed to foster unity are now being weaponized. Geopolitics increasingly resembles a contentious divorce, where shared resources—trade, the internet, energy, supply chains, migration, raw materials, and technology—become tools for exerting influence and inflicting harm.
In this evolving landscape, the lines between war and peace blur.The post-Cold War era’s perceived golden age of peace was an illusion. Violence persists thru sanctions, export controls, energy cut-offs, election interference, and weaponized migration, all strategies short of formal war.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine underscored this shift.While the conflict involves traditional warfare elements like tanks and missiles,it also incorporates sanctions,drones,AI,and social media influence campaigns,blurring the lines between 19th-century warfare and 21st-century technology.
The Trump administration has thrown all the old certainties into a blender and liquified them. Gone is any clear distinction between war and peace, allies and enemies, national and private interests, or left and right
While leaders like President Joe Biden, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and Germany’s Olaf Scholz seek to restore the old order, Trump’s actions reveal the need for a new global perspective. His administration challenged established norms, blurring the lines between war and peace, allies and enemies, and national and private interests.Actions like initiating trade wars, allegedly attempting to extract resources from Ukraine, and questioning the territorial integrity of Greenland and Panama undermined the traditional international order.
The issue isn’t mere “disorder,” implying agreement on what “order” should be. the concept of international order has been overshadowed by events. Governments have struggled to manage crises stemming from hyper-connectivity and interdependence, such as the 2008 financial crisis, the Syrian refugee crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic, eroding public trust. Emergency measures have become commonplace, transforming the international rulebook into an exceptions-based system rather than a rules-based one.
Trump capitalized on public dissatisfaction with elites who failed to deliver on their promises. Many Americans now share the view that the liberal international order was a facade, much like the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. The abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay tarnished its liberal image. Civil wars around the world undermined its claim to being international. Ultimately, these failures prevented it from establishing a true order.
the U.S. Perspective: Domestic Implications of “Unpeace”
The “Age of Unpeace” has critically important implications for the United States, impacting various aspects of domestic policy and public sentiment.Here’s a breakdown:
| Area | Impact | U.S. Example |
|---|---|---|
| Economic Policy | Increased protectionism and trade disputes. | Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods, impacting american consumers and businesses. |
| National Security | Reassessment of alliances and defense strategies. | Debate over U.S. commitment to NATO and increased focus on domestic security. |
| Immigration | Stricter border controls and heightened anti-immigrant sentiment. | The controversy surrounding the U.S.-mexico border wall and policies on asylum seekers. |
| Public Trust | Erosion of faith in government and international institutions. | Declining public confidence in institutions like the UN and increasing political polarization. |
For example, Trump’s trade war with China, initiated in 2018, led to tariffs on billions of dollars worth of goods, impacting American businesses and consumers. While intended to protect domestic industries, the tariffs also increased prices and disrupted supply chains, highlighting the complex economic consequences of “unpeace.”
The debate over U.S. involvement in NATO also reflects the changing dynamics of international relations. Trump questioned the value of the alliance, arguing that European members were not contributing their fair share. This skepticism challenged the traditional U.S. commitment to collective security and raised concerns about the future of transatlantic relations.
Moving Forward: strategies for Navigating the “Age of Unpeace”
as Europe and the U.S. adapt to the “Age of Unpeace,” several strategies are crucial:
- Strengthening Domestic Resilience: Investing in infrastructure, education, and healthcare to bolster societal well-being and reduce vulnerability to external shocks.
- Diversifying Supply chains: Reducing reliance on single sources for critical goods and materials to mitigate the impact of trade disruptions.
- Combating Disinformation: Developing strategies to counter the spread of false information and enhance media literacy to protect democratic processes.
- Rebuilding Public Trust: Promoting transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership to restore faith in government and institutions.
These strategies require a multi-faceted approach involving government, businesses, and civil society working together to address the challenges of the “Age of Unpeace.”
The Path Ahead: Reimagining Interdependence
As Europeans and Americans grapple with the implications of Russian aggression, they must also learn to thrive in an era shaped by figures like Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping. A key challenge is to restore confidence in interdependence. While supporting Ukraine and reevaluating economic models to manage trade wars are necessary, they are not enough.We must also carefully consider migration, welfare, health policies, and how politicians engage with their constituents. Ultimately, a revitalized approach to politics is needed—one that empowers citizens and restores their sense of control.
How does dr. Sharma define the concept of the “Age of Unpeace” and how does it differ from customary understandings of international relations?
Navigating the Age of “Unpeace”: An Interview with Dr. Anya Sharma, Geopolitical Strategist
Archyde News: Welcome, Dr.Sharma. Thank you for joining us to discuss the complex landscape described as the “Age of Unpeace.” To start, could you elaborate on what this concept entails and how it differs from traditional understandings of international relations?
Dr. Anya Sharma: Thank you for having me. The “Age of Unpeace,” as the article rightly points out, signifies a shift away from the perceived post-Cold War era of relative peace. Its characterized by blurred lines between conflict and cooperation, where various tools are employed to exert influence and inflict harm, short of outright war. Unlike traditional notions of peace, which typically define the absence of armed conflict, the “Age of Unpeace” recognizes that peace is no longer static but a spectrum with sanctions, cyber warfare, and economic coercion all being utilized as instruments of power.
The Role of Key Players
Archyde News: The article highlights figures like Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping in shaping this era. How have their actions specifically contributed to this “unpeaceful” surroundings?
Dr. Anya Sharma: Each leader has played a significant role. Trump, through his “America First” approach, challenged existing alliances and trade norms, causing disruption in global markets. Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, of course, exemplified the use of traditional warfare alongside hybrid tactics. Furthermore, Xi Jinping’s assertive foreign policy, coupled with China’s economic and technological rise, has challenged the existing global power balance, fostering an environment of strategic competition.
Domestic Implications and U.S. Policy
Archyde News: The article details the domestic implications for the U.S. What specific challenges does the “Age of Unpeace” pose to the United States internally, and how can it protect itself?
Dr. Anya Sharma: The U.S. faces substantial domestic challenges. Economically, protectionism and trade disputes, as seen with China, can impact consumer prices and supply chains. Nationally, these events force a reassessment of alliances and defense strategies, necessitating greater focus on domestic security.To navigate these waters successfully, the U.S. must strengthen domestic resilience, diversify supply chains, and combat disinformation. Moreover, rebuilding public trust in government and international institutions is essential for navigating the political waters created by the age of “unpeace.”
Strategies for the Future
Archyde News: The article proposes several strategies for navigating this new world order. What do you see as the most crucial steps for both Europe and the United States moving forward?
Dr. Anya Sharma: The most crucial is strengthening both domestic resilience and reimagining interdependence. Investing in infrastructure, education, and healthcare to ensure stability is paramount. Diversifying supply chains is crucial for mitigating the impact of trade disruptions and combating disinformation.Moreover, a revitalized approach to politics, empowering citizens and restoring their sense of control will be vital in an environment where traditional institutions are losing trust. This is not merely about supporting Ukraine or managing trade wars, but revisiting core values like migration, welfare, and health policies.
Public Discourse & The Future
Archyde News: The “Age of Unpeace” suggests a essential shift in how we understand global relations. What do you think are the most significant changes that the average person needs to understand to navigate this new era, and what should be the priority actions?
Dr. Anya Sharma: People need to understand that the world is interconnected in ways previously unimaginable,and that this hyper-connectivity simultaneously creates opportunities and vulnerabilities.They need to be aware of the various tactics used by state and non-state actors to influence events. The top priority should be to promote critical thinking, media literacy, and a proactive approach to geopolitical engagement. It involves understanding that diplomacy, economic tools, and information operations are just as vital as military might in asserting national interests in an Age of “Unpeace.”
Archyde News: Dr. Sharma, thank you for sharing your insights. It’s a complex picture, but your perspective provides clarity on how to move forward in this “Age of Unpeace.” For our readers, what one action do you want them to consider, and why?
Dr. Anya Sharma: I’d urge readers to consider the crucial element of information hygiene. Become critical consumers of information.Verify sources. Question narratives. Recognize that in this age, manipulation is a tool, and critical thinking is your shield. It is through a more informed public, that we can move towards true understanding and influence of events rather than become passive recipients of a narrative that hinders progress or causes conflict.
archyde News: That’s an excellent point to end on; it’s a message that highlights a pathway to greater understanding and collaboration during current times. Thank you, again, for taking the time speak with us.
