The End of Illusions About the International Order
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered what will likely go down as one of the most important speeches of this decade on Tuesday in Davos. His message was blunt but necessary: the world is undergoing a rupture, not a transition. Carney dismissed nostalgia for the old world order, asserting that it is not a viable strategy. His statement resonated like a thunderclap in the Davos conference hall, where the global elite had to accept an uncomfortable truth.
The Canadian leader went further by denouncing what he called the “useful fiction” of American hegemony and the rules-based international order. He explained that major powers, including the United States, had often applied a selective version of these rules, exempting themselves when it suited them. This rare candor shocked some, but it also freed other nations from the need to maintain this fiction. Carney warned that major powers now use economic integration as a weapon, tariffs as leverage, and financial infrastructure as a means of coercion.
Middle Powers Facing Their New Reality
In his speech, Mark Carney issued a passionate appeal to the middle powers around the world. He told them with startling clarity: if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. This brutal culinary metaphor perfectly sums up the new geopolitical dynamic that is taking shape. Canada, like other medium-sized countries, can no longer rely on the automatic protection once guaranteed by its geography and historical alliances.
Carney urged these nations to unite to resist coercion from aggressive superpowers. He emphasized that the gains of transactionalism will become harder to replicate if the great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values in favor of the unbridled pursuit of their own power and interests. This message resonated particularly strongly with representatives from European countries present in Davos, who are beginning to realize that their traditional position as privileged partners of the United States is no longer guaranteed.
When I hear Carney say that nostalgia is not a strategy, I feel a breath of fresh air, but also a tinge of bitterness. The bitterness stems from the realization that everything we believed in—that international order that seemed natural and eternal to us—may have been nothing more than a house of cards built on fragile foundations. The breath of fresh air is that sudden liberation from having to believe in a collective lie. It’s paradoxical, I know, but there’s something terrifying and at the same time liberating about this brutal acceptance of reality. We can no longer hide behind illusions.
The European Response: Between Resistance and Adaptation
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_c7547909a034fa0c-optimized-madmax-mko90cpf.jpg)
Emmanuel Macron and the End of Submission
French President Emmanuel Macron delivered one of the most scathing responses to Trump’s threats during his speech in Davos. Wearing aviator sunglasses to protect his eyes after a burst blood vessel, he began with a quip about the era of peace, stability, and predictability that drew nervous laughter from the audience. But his tone quickly turned serious—even grave—as he denounced the use of tariffs as a means of exerting pressure against territorial sovereignty.
Macron condemned what he called the endless accumulation of new tariffs, describing them as fundamentally unacceptable, especially when used as leverage against territorial sovereignty. The French president warned that the world was reaching a moment of unprecedented instability and imbalance, noting that there had been more than 60 wars in 2024—an all-time high. His conclusion was particularly striking: we prefer respect to brute force, science to conspiracy theories, and the rule of law to brutality.
The European Union Moving Toward Greater Independence
Ursula von der Leyen outlined the European response to this new reality. The President of the European Commission announced that the EU is building a more independent Europe, taking swift action in crucial areas such as energy, raw materials, defense, and digital technology. She emphasized that Europe will only be able to capitalize on this opportunity if it recognizes that this change is permanent.
Von der Leyen also confirmed that the European Union was on the verge of concluding a historic free trade agreement with India, which she described as the “mother of all agreements,” creating a market of 2 billion people representing nearly a quarter of global GDP. Most importantly, she affirmed that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Denmark and Greenland were non-negotiable, adding that the EU was preparing a massive investment in Greenland to support the local economy and infrastructure.
I am both impressed and concerned by this European response. Impressed by Macron and von der Leyen’s determination to chart their own course, to refuse to submit to the new American doctrine. It is courageous, it is necessary, but it is also incredibly risky. Europe is embarking on a grand adventure toward independence without a U.S. safety net, and that frightens me. It is the fear of a traveler leaving their home port to sail into the unknown. But there is no other choice. The home port no longer exists.
Trump's Strategy: Force and Confusion
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FThe_American_flag_is_waving_in_the_wind-optimized-madmax-mko90gm3.jpg)
Military Threats and Their Apparent Decline
Donald Trump caused confusion and concern within the Western camp by initially refusing to rule out the use of military force to seize Greenland, which constituted a direct threat against a NATO ally. This unprecedented stance sparked a crisis within the Atlantic Alliance, as the use of military force against a NATO member would likely have signaled the end of the organization as we know it.
Faced with international outcry, Trump finally backtracked during his speech in Davos, declaring, “I will not use force.” However, this apparent retreat did not allay fears, as he reiterated his determination to acquire the territory. The U.S. president stated that no nation or group of nations was capable of securing Greenland other than the United States, adding that he was seeking immediate negotiations to discuss the U.S. acquisition of Greenland.
Mistakes and Aggressive Rhetoric
Trump’s speech in Davos was marked by several embarrassing mistakes and particularly aggressive rhetoric toward his European allies. On several occasions, the U.S. president confused Greenland with Iceland, a different country, which did not fail to elicit wry smiles from the audience. Even more troubling, he adopted a moralizing tone, reproaching European allies for their insolence, disloyalty, and political mistakes.
Trump called Denmark ungrateful, downplaying the issue as a minor request concerning a piece of ice. He claimed that such an acquisition would not pose a threat to the NATO alliance, which includes both Denmark and the United States. These remarks were perceived as particularly insulting by European leaders, who began to question the viability of an alliance with a partner who shows so little respect for his allies.
Hearing Trump confuse Greenland with Iceland isn’t just comical—it’s terrifying. It’s as if the driver of the bus carrying us all toward the future doesn’t know which direction to take. Arrogance combined with incompetence is an explosive mix. And this way of treating allies like ungrateful children who must obey without asking questions is humiliating. It’s humiliating for Europe, for Canada, for all those who believed in a partnership based on mutual respect. I feel this humiliation as a personal wound.
The Geopolitical Consequences of a World in Turmoil
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Famerican_flag_background_generative_ai-optimized-madmax-mko90jva.jpg)
The End of Unchallenged American Hegemony
This week’s events in Davos likely mark the end of unchallenged American hegemony, which has shaped the world since the end of World War II. The U.S. presence in Europe—symbolized by the troops, equipment, and nuclear missiles stationed on the continent—no longer guarantees the same level of security as before. European components remain vital to U.S. military equipment—such as Norwegian missiles and British ejection seats aboard the F-35 fighter jet—but this interdependence is no longer enough to maintain the alliance’s unity.
The rift initiated by Trump has consequences that extend far beyond Greenland. It calls into question the very foundations of the European security architecture established after 1945. Multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and NATO—which were designed to maintain stability and international cooperation—are now threatened by this new American approach based on brute force and transactionalism.
The Rapprochement Between U.S. Allies and China
One of the most ironic consequences of Trump’s strategy is that it risks pushing his traditional allies toward China. Canada has already announced the creation of a new strategic partnership with Beijing, a decision that has alarmed many analysts. Emmanuel Macron has also called for more Chinese foreign direct investment in Europe in certain key sectors, stating that China is welcome in Europe.
This apparent rapprochement between the United States’ traditional allies and its main geopolitical rival represents a dramatic reversal of international dynamics. Trump, who had made confrontation with China a cornerstone of his foreign policy, now finds himself in the paradoxical situation where his own policies are pushing his allies toward his adversary. This is one of the many paradoxes of this new geopolitical era we are entering.
The irony of this situation is almost painful. America, which presented itself as the bastion of the free world against Chinese expansionism, now finds itself isolated as its allies turn to Beijing out of necessity. It is as if the captain of the ship had abandoned his crew, forcing the sailors to seek refuge on another vessel. I feel this irony is a betrayal—not on the part of the allies, who are simply trying to survive, but on the part of America, which has abandoned its leadership role.
The reaction of the public and the media
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_38c83a4cd58a5f5a-optimized-madmax-mko90o6r.jpg)
Stunned Reaction and Confusion
The European and Canadian public reacted with shock and bewilderment to Trump’s statements. The international media provided extensive coverage of what is perceived as a major crisis in Western diplomacy. Editorials expressed a mix of shock, anger, and sadness at this sudden break with the historic American ally.
Many have highlighted the absurdity of the situation: Greenland is an autonomous Danish territory with a population of 57,000, and the United States already has considerable access to the island for military bases and the exploitation of its mineral resources. Trump’s request to acquire the territory therefore appears to be an unjustified provocation that threatens to destabilize the entire Western alliance.
Calls for Resistance and Unity
In the face of this crisis, many voices have called for resistance and unity among middle powers. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever summed up this sentiment during a panel discussion in Davos, stating that until now we have tried to appease the new president, but now so many red lines have been crossed that you must choose your self-respect. He added a striking distinction: being a happy vassal is one thing. Being an unhappy slave is quite another.
This statement resonated powerfully among European leaders, who are beginning to realize that appeasement does not work with this new U.S. administration. Europe has talked for years about freeing itself from its military dependence on the United States, but it now finds itself in a situation where it must act or risk losing all credibility on the international stage.
These calls for resistance touch me deeply. They resonate with that part of me that refuses to submit, that believes in dignity and autonomy. But they also frighten me, because resistance comes at a cost. I see Europe standing up to America, like a child who refuses to obey an abusive parent. It’s courageous, it’s necessary, but it’s also terrifying. We are on the cusp of a new chapter in history, and no one knows how it will end.
Conclusion: Toward a New Multipolar World
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2Fimg_b324fb1da1d39369-optimized-madmax-mko90s1e.jpg)
Embracing Disruption to Build the Future
The conclusion emerging from the discussions in Davos is clear: the old world order is gone, and it will not return. Mark Carney stated with brutal lucidity that we should not mourn this lost order, for nostalgia is not a strategy. Instead of regretting the past, nations must accept this rupture and seek to build something better from the fragments of the old system.
Carney expressed a paradoxical yet powerful hope: we believe that from this rupture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just. This message of hope in the midst of crisis offers a different perspective on this geopolitical rupture. Instead of seeing only the dangers and uncertainties, it proposes seeing the opportunities to create a system that is more equitable and better reflects the realities of the modern world.
The Challenge of Cooperation in a Fragmented World
The major challenge facing the international community is maintaining cooperation in an increasingly fragmented world. China, through its Vice Premier He Lifeng, offered an alternative vision, asserting that China’s development represents an opportunity rather than a threat to the global economy. He promised that China would continue to open its economy and called for fair treatment of Chinese companies abroad.
European leaders also expressed their willingness to cooperate with all partners who respect sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU was on the verge of concluding a historic agreement with India, and Emmanuel Macron invited China to invest in Europe. These initiatives show that despite the rift with the United States, Western nations are actively seeking new partnerships to navigate this new multipolar world.
As I write these lines, I feel a complex mix of emotions. Fear of the unknown, certainly, but also a strange sense of excitement. The old world is crumbling, taking its injustices and hypocrisies with it. From its ruins, something new is emerging. It won’t be easy; it won’t be painless; but perhaps—just perhaps—we can build a better world. A world where no one is powerful enough to impose their will by force, where alliances are based on mutual respect rather than domination. It’s a dream, I know, but it’s a dream worth dreaming.
Sources
Primary sources
NBC News, “Trump’s threats force U.S. allies to grapple with a global ‘rupture,’” January 21, 2026. Al Jazeera, “‘Rupture in the world order’: What Carney and world leaders said in Davos,” January 21, 2026. Reuters, “Trump tells Davos the U.S. will not use force to gain Greenland,” January 21, 2026.
Secondary sources
Mark Carney’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, January 20, 2026. Ursula von der Leyen’s speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, January 21, 2026. Emmanuel Macron’s remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, January 21, 2026.
This content was created with the help of AI.
