In the early months of 2025, a dramatic shift in American foreign policy is unfolding that could fundamentally alter the international order established after World War II. President Donald Trump’s growing alignment with Russian President Vladimir Putin, coupled with emerging discussions about the United States potentially withdrawing from NATO and the United Nations, suggests a historic pivot in America’s global positioning. This realignment comes amid persistent questions about Trump’s connections to Russia and speculation about Putin’s long-term geopolitical strategy. The consequences of these developments could reshape international relations for decades to come, potentially accelerating a transition toward a multipolar world where Western dominance gives way to new centers of power in the East.
Trump’s Russian Realignment: A Historic Foreign Policy Shift
President Trump’s increasingly warm relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin represents what historian Anne Applebaum describes as a “radical” departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy1. This shift has become particularly evident in recent weeks, as Secretary of State Marco and National Security Advisor Mikez have engaged in direct discussions with Russian representatives to formulate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, reportedly without Ukrainian participation1. The exclusion of Ukrainian officials from these talks signals a significant reversal from previous American policy that insisted on Ukraine’s sovereignty and agency in any peace negotiations. President Trump has further strained relations with Ukraine by falsely claiming that Ukraine initiated the war that began three years ago, casting blame on a U.S. ally rather than on Russia, the actual aggressor1. This repositioning of American sympathies represents a seismic shift in post-Cold War alignments.
The Trump administration’s Russia-friendly approach extends beyond the Ukraine conflict to a broader reorientation of alliances and partnerships. Trump has historically demonstrated antagonism toward NATO, an alliance established after the defeat of Nazi Germany that has been the cornerstone of transatlantic security for over seven decades1. His persistent criticism of NATO members for allegedly insufficient defense spending has evolved from a negotiating tactic during his first term to what now appears to be a fundamental questioning of the alliance’s value to America. This skepticism aligns with viewpoints expressed by political figures like Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who has characterized NATO as “a great deal for Europe” but “a raw deal for America”3. The convergence of these positions suggests a potential willingness to reconsider America’s most significant military alliance at a time when Russia continues to pose what many security experts consider a serious threat to European stability.
The implications of this realignment are generating significant concern among traditional U.S. allies and partners. Anne Applebaum, who authored the Pulitzer Prize-winning book “Autocracy Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Rule the World,” notes that Trump’s actions are raising alarms not just in Europe but among allied nations worldwide1. The willingness of a U.S. president to collaborate with an authoritarian leader who has violated international law through territorial aggression sends a powerful signal about America’s changing priorities and values. For European nations that have built their security strategies around American leadership and commitment to democratic principles, this pivot represents a potentially existential challenge that could necessitate a fundamental reconsideration of their defense postures and diplomatic orientations.
The Kremlin Connection: Examining the Asset Question
The question of whether Donald Trump has served as a Russian asset has persisted for years, culminating in a special counsel investigation during his first term that uncovered evidence of “extensive criminal behavior” involving Trump, his associates, and family members, though it stopped short of proving direct recruitment by Russian intelligence services2. Despite the lack of definitive legal conclusions, multiple analysts and authors have continued to examine the evidence of Trump’s long-standing ties to Russia. Craig Unger, an American journalist who has written two books on Trump’s connections to Russian intelligence and the Russian mafia, states he is “absolutely convinced” that Trump is a Russian asset, distinguishing this from being a formal agent who would receive direct assignments and payment2. The distinction between asset and agent is significant in intelligence terminology, with assets typically being influential individuals cultivated by intelligence agencies rather than formal operatives.
Unger points to a pattern of connections dating back to 1980, when Trump was developing his first major real estate venture, the Grand Hyatt Hotel near Grand Central Station in New York2. According to Unger’s reporting, Trump purchased television sets for this hotel from Joy Lud Electronics, allegedly a KGB front operation, which initiated a series of meetings that eventually led to Trump’s first visit to Moscow in 19872. Perhaps most notably, upon returning from Moscow, Trump took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times criticizing America’s alliance with NATO and made a short-lived attempt to run for president in 19882. This early expression of anti-NATO sentiment, coming directly after a Moscow visit reportedly orchestrated by the KGB according to former agent Yuri Shvets, creates a pattern that aligns remarkably with Trump’s current foreign policy positions regarding NATO, Ukraine, and Western Europe2.
Another significant piece of evidence cited by Unger involves Trump’s real estate dealings with individuals connected to Russian organized crime2. In 1984, a man named David Bogatin, who according to FBI files had ties to the Russian mafia, purchased five condominiums in Trump Tower for $6 million2. Unger claims to have identified a total of 13 individuals with connections to Russian organized crime who resided in Trump properties, suggesting a pattern of financial entanglement that predated Trump’s political career by decades2. While these connections do not definitively prove that Trump was acting under Russian influence, they establish a network of relationships that raise serious questions about potential vulnerabilities to foreign influence. The persistence of these questions, combined with Trump’s consistent policy positions that appear to benefit Russian strategic interests, creates a troubling narrative that continues to challenge America’s understanding of its current leadership.
The Institutional Question: NATO and UN in the Balance
Recent statements by influential figures have brought renewed attention to the possibility of American withdrawal from foundational international institutions. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), publicly endorsed the idea that the United States should withdraw from both NATO and the United Nations, responding “I agree” to a social media post suggesting “It’s time to leave NATO and the UN”3. This position aligns with views expressed by some Republican senators and with former statements by President Trump criticizing the financial burden these organizations place on the United States3. The convergence of these influential voices suggests that what once might have been considered fringe positions are now entering mainstream political discourse, potentially foreshadowing policy shifts of historic proportions.
A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would fundamentally undermine the alliance that has been central to Western security strategy since 19493. NATO provides collective security guarantees to its member nations, and American military capabilities and funding constitute a significant portion of the alliance’s overall strength3. The absence of the United States would severely weaken NATO’s ability to deter aggression, particularly from Russia, which has demonstrated both the will and capability to challenge European security through its invasion of Ukraine3. European nations would likely be forced to dramatically increase their defense spending and potentially develop new security arrangements, including the possibility of greater European military integration or even discussions about European nuclear deterrence to replace the American security guarantee.
Similarly, an American departure from the United Nations would profoundly alter the balance of power within that organization and potentially accelerate its decline as an effective forum for international cooperation3. The United States has been the largest financial contributor to the UN and has used its position as a permanent member of the Security Council to shape global governance since the organization’s founding after World War II. Without American participation, the UN would face both a funding crisis and a legitimacy challenge that could render it increasingly irrelevant to major global issues. Alternative forums and institutions, potentially dominated by authoritarian powers like China and Russia, might emerge to fill this vacuum, creating a global governance structure less aligned with democratic values and human rights principles.
The consequences of these potential withdrawals would extend far beyond immediate security considerations to the very foundation of the post-1945 international order. That order, created largely under American leadership, established norms, institutions, and practices that have, despite their imperfections, helped prevent another world war and fostered unprecedented global economic development. A deliberate American retreat from this system would signal the end of an era in international relations and potentially usher in a period of greater uncertainty, regional competition, and the reassertion of spheres of influence by major powers. For smaller nations that have relied on international institutions to amplify their voice and protect their interests, this shift could prove particularly challenging.
Putin’s Strategic Vision: Playing the Long Game
Vladimir Putin’s approach to the Ukraine conflict and broader international relations reveals a sophisticated long-term strategy that has confounded Western expectations4. Rather than pursuing rapid military victories, Putin has demonstrated patience, ensuring that Ukraine and its Western supporters would face increasingly difficult choices as the conflict continued4. This approach has been likened to “a cricket team batting long in a test match” where “the idea is not always to win; it is to ensure that the other side can only draw or lose”4. By periodically raising nuclear threats and carefully calibrating his military objectives, Putin has successfully limited Western support for Ukraine while steadily advancing Russian positions on the battlefield4. This strategic patience appears to be yielding results as the Trump administration now engages in peace negotiations that exclude Ukrainian representation.
Perhaps Putin’s most impressive achievement has been his management of the Russian economy in the face of unprecedented sanctions4. Despite facing some 24,000 individual sanctions, Russia has maintained economic stability by pivoting toward alternative markets and partners4. When Western nations reduced their purchases of Russian energy, Putin expanded sales to India and China4. He has successfully marketed Russian weapons to countries in the Global South and has increased Russia’s economic integration with non-Western economies4. This economic resilience has prevented the collapse that many Western analysts predicted and has allowed Russia to sustain its military operations in Ukraine despite significant costs and casualties.
Putin has also worked systematically to develop alternative international structures that can reduce Western influence and create new centers of power4. His investment in the BRICS alliance (originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has paid dividends as that organization has expanded to include ten members, potentially creating an alternative pole in the international system4. By fostering relationships with leaders like China’s Xi Jinping and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, while maintaining partnerships with countries like India that also have strong Western ties, Putin has ensured that Russia is far from isolated internationally despite Western attempts to make it a pariah state4. This network of relationships provides Russia with diplomatic, economic, and strategic options that have helped neutralize Western pressure tactics.
Unlike Western leaders who often framed the Ukraine conflict in moral terms as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism, Putin has consistently presented his position in pragmatic, strategic language4. He has maintained that Russia has specific security concerns and territorial demands that, if addressed, could lead to a negotiated settlement4. This framing has allowed him to appear reasonable and open to diplomacy even while pursuing aggressive military actions. By contrast, the Western insistence on Ukraine’s complete victory and Russia’s decisive defeat created maximalist positions that became increasingly difficult to sustain as the war progressed. Putin’s strategic clarity and willingness to accept limited objectives may ultimately prove more effective than the West’s more idealistic but less sustainable approach to the conflict.
The New World Order: Projecting Global Power in 2045
The current geopolitical realignments are accelerating shifts in the global balance of power that were already underway before recent events. Economic projections suggest that by mid-century, the world will have undergone a fundamental transformation in which China overtakes the United States as the world’s largest economy within a generation, while India joins both as a global leader5. This economic rebalancing will not necessarily mean that Western nations become poor—they will likely remain the wealthiest in per capita terms—but their overall economic weight and consequent global influence will diminish relative to rising powers5. The “Triad” concept from the 1980s that envisioned a world economy led by the United States, Europe, and Japan will give way to a new order dominated by China, the United States, and India, with the European Union potentially functioning as a fourth major power if it can act cohesively5.
Demographic factors will play a crucial role in this transformation, as the global labor force grows almost exclusively in developing countries over the next few decades5. While traditional Western powers face aging populations and potential labor shortages, countries like India will benefit from a growing working-age population that can drive economic expansion5. Technology will become increasingly important relative to capital accumulation in determining economic success, potentially creating new patterns of competition and cooperation5. These structural shifts in the global economy will occur regardless of current political decisions, but policy choices made today—particularly regarding international institutions, alliances, and economic relationships—will significantly influence how smoothly or disruptively this transition unfolds.
The potential American withdrawal from traditional alliances and international institutions could accelerate this power transition by creating vacuums that rising powers will eagerly fill. China has already demonstrated its ambition to reshape global governance through initiatives like the Belt and Road program and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. A diminished American presence in international forums would create additional opportunities for China to expand its influence and reshape norms and practices according to its preferences. Similarly, if European nations are forced to focus more resources on their own defense due to NATO’s weakening, they may have less capacity to project influence globally, potentially accelerating their relative decline on the world stage. The resulting world order might feature more clearly defined spheres of influence, with democratic and authoritarian blocs competing across multiple domains while middle powers seek to maintain their autonomy through careful balancing.
This evolving global landscape will present both challenges and opportunities for different nations and regions. Rising powers in Asia and potentially Africa will gain greater voice in international affairs and may reshape global institutions to better reflect their interests and values. Traditional Western powers will need to adapt to a world where they can no longer dominate decision-making but must instead build coalitions and find areas of common interest with a more diverse set of global actors. The international legal and normative framework established after World War II may undergo significant revisions as new powers assert their preferences regarding sovereignty, human rights, and the legitimate use of force. Whether this transition leads to increased conflict or a new stable equilibrium will depend largely on how major powers manage their relationships during this period of change.
Implications for Democracy and Global Stability
The realignment of American foreign policy and the shifting global order raise profound questions about the future of democracy and international stability. If the United States significantly reduces its support for democratic institutions and values abroad, as suggested by its warming relations with authoritarian Russia, other democracies may find themselves increasingly isolated and vulnerable. The post-Cold War expectation that democracy would continue its global expansion appears increasingly tenuous as authoritarian models demonstrate resilience and even appeal in various parts of the world. The Russian model, which combines nationalist rhetoric, state capitalism, and sophisticated information control, may gain further legitimacy if Russia achieves its objectives in Ukraine without facing significant consequences.
Putin’s success in weathering Western pressure while maintaining his grip on power sends a powerful message to other authoritarian leaders about the potential benefits of challenging the U.S.-led order. His strategic patience and willingness to accept short-term costs for long-term gains offer a template that other revisionist powers might follow. China, in particular, is likely studying Russia’s experience closely as it considers its own challenges to Western preferences, especially regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea. If the current international system continues to fragment along competing blocs with different values and objectives, managing global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and technological disruption will become increasingly difficult, potentially leaving humanity less equipped to address existential threats.
For ordinary citizens across the world, these shifts may manifest in various ways—from changing economic opportunities as supply chains realign to new security concerns as traditional alliances weaken. Information environments may become increasingly contested as competing powers struggle for narrative dominance. Democratic backsliding, already evident in various regions, could accelerate if the United States no longer prioritizes democracy promotion in its foreign policy. The ideological competition that many thought had ended with the Cold War may instead be entering a new phase, with different models of governance and economic organization vying for influence in an increasingly multipolar world.
Conclusion
The current moment represents a potential inflection point in global affairs, with decisions being made today that will reshape international relations for decades to come. President Trump’s realignment toward Russia, combined with discussions about American withdrawal from foundational international institutions, could accelerate the transition to a new world order where Western dominance gives way to a more complex multipolar system. Vladimir Putin’s patient strategy appears to be bearing fruit, potentially vindicating his approach to challenging the post-Cold War settlement. As economic power continues to shift eastward, driven by demographic and technological factors, the international system is likely to undergo further transformation, creating both risks and opportunities for nations and peoples worldwide.
Whether this transition leads to increased conflict or a new stable equilibrium will depend largely on the wisdom and restraint shown by leaders of major powers. History suggests that periods of power transition are often accompanied by heightened tensions and sometimes by major conflicts, as rising powers challenge existing arrangements and established powers resist change. Yet there are also examples of peaceful transitions where accommodation and adaptation prevented catastrophic confrontation. The choices made in Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Brussels, and other capitals over the coming years will determine which historical pattern the current transition follows. For citizens and observers worldwide, understanding these dynamics is essential for navigating the uncertain waters of a world in transition.
