Alexander Stubb argues the world order isn't breaking but evolving. His confidence stems from the protective power of international institutions like the EU, which can counter threats like tariffs and secure trade deals. This contrasts with more alarmist views that see the current instability as a complete system breakdown.
The post-WWII global framework, including international law, was a fragile agreement primarily enforced by the US. Its erosion is leading to a "might makes right" reality where nations like Russia, China, and the US act unilaterally in their perceived self-interest, abandoning the pretense of shared rules.
During the Greenland crisis, Europe employed a two-pronged strategy against Trump's threats. While some leaders like Alexander Stubb pursued de-escalation, others subtly signaled Europe's formidable economic power—a "bazooka" in trade and finance—to create leverage and coerce a non-military resolution.
To manage global shifts, Alexander Stubb advocates for reforming institutions like the UN Security Council to give rising nations more power. This strategy aims to secure their buy-in for a rules-based system, arguing it's more stable than building separate alliances of middle powers outside of existing frameworks.
President Stubb uses Finland's peace with the USSR as a framework. Finland lost territory but preserved its nationhood. He argues Ukraine can secure an even better outcome through a peace deal: EU membership, massive reconstruction aid, and US security guarantees—a strategic victory that transcends battlefield lines.
Finland's president explains that the US can entertain a "multipolar" world of transactional deals because of its immense power. In contrast, smaller nations like Finland depend on a "multilateral," rules-based order for their security and prosperity. For them, multilateralism is not a choice but a geopolitical necessity.
While a unipolar world led by one's own country is advantageous, a multipolar world with competing powers like the U.S. and China creates a dynamic tension. This competition may force more compromised global decisions, potentially leading to a more balanced, albeit more tense, international system than one dominated by a single unchallenged power.
The global economy proved more resilient than feared due to three factors: stronger institutions built after the 2008 financial crisis, the private sector's agility in absorbing shocks like tariffs, and the fact that widespread retaliatory trade wars did not fully materialize.
With the U.S. stepping back from its traditional leadership role, European countries are creating new, direct alliances to ensure their own security. A notable example is the emerging UK-Scandinavia-Baltic-Poland axis, which signals a fundamental shift in the continent's geopolitical architecture away from a singular reliance on Washington.
The era of economic-led globalization is over. In the new world order, geopolitical interests are the primary driver of international relations. Economic instruments like tariffs and export restrictions are now used as levers to assert national interests, a fundamental shift from the US-centric view where the economy traditionally took the lead.
Mark Carney, former head of the Bank of England and a symbol of globalism, announced at Davos that the old world order is dead. He stated a return to power politics and sovereignty is the new reality, marking a significant shift in elite consensus.