In order to survive, the world will need to readjust in 2026. The world is shifting. The game’s new rules are unambiguous.
A new era of economic and technological coercion has been ushered in by Trumpism. In a year that seems destined to embody the aphorism that might make right, the world will see who is better equipped. Amidst the fallout from tariffs, the global reconfiguration of trade, finance, and geopolitical ties will accelerate as a result of interventionism and transactionalism.
Is the world entering a new era of coercion?
The tools and safeguards for handling the violence in geopolitics will be put to the test in 2026. The rivalry for resources is intensifying. For this reason, there is an urgent need to look for alternative trade relations with the United States beyond the long queue of nations waiting to sign their own bilateral trade agreements with Trump.
International relations are changing, as evidenced by China’s attempts to project stability and open up markets, the European Union’s (EU) vassalage to Trump, and the emergence of new geopolitical spaces in the Global South. There is more to it than just winners and losers.
Additionally, there are the opportunists who have figured out how to take advantage of the reinstatement of imperialist agendas and doctrines, as well as those acting with unreserved pragmatism, which allows them to secure a place—or even seize opportunities to exert influence—within a seemingly chaotic order; the resistant, who are spearheading protest movements or creating spaces that go against the tide; and the overwhelmed, who feel lost in transition and are struggling in the wake of changes for which they lack the necessary resources or leadership.
Who benefits from opportunism in a chaotic global order?
2026 may also be a year of “polytunity” for certain nations. And not just China, which is clinging to the expansion of its export market in an effort to sustain economic growth, but also India, as evidenced by its transactional approach to Beijing or Moscow, or the Gulf states, with their increased diplomatic and technological prominence. Other actors, such as the EU, have been forced to cling to the goal of defense as a crucial vector of their policies as a result of this volatility, albeit with few concrete results.
New UN report: The world is overarmed. Peace and development are underfunded.
— United Nations Geneva (@UNGeneva) September 13, 2025
If current trends persist, global military spending could reach $4.7 to $6.6 trillion by 2035.
It's time to rebalance military spending for a sustainable & peaceful future.https://t.co/MnlP1Gognt pic.twitter.com/xeeQldUfby
But without trust, how can an order be established? The likelihood of opportunistic attacks or even miscalculations only rises as conflict technology advances and major powers undermine international law and governance frameworks. Strategic restraint, which was intended to prevent military escalation by limiting uses and stockpiles, has failed. In 2025, there were more than 550 instances of political violence every day, and defense spending to support drone and air strikes hit a record high. A “new normal” characterized by high levels of violence will start in 2026.
Does US military posturing signal revived gunboat diplomacy?
There is a military buildup in the Caribbean that is unprecedented in recent decades as 2025 draws to a close. The US deployment in the area includes the largest aircraft carrier in the world, a nuclear submarine, F-35 fighter jets, and additional warships.
The US has threatened to militarily intervene in Mexico and Colombia, seize control of the Panama Canal, launch extrajudicial military attacks against suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and the Pacific, and place a price on the head of Nicolás Maduro, the leader of Venezuela. Nigeria, a nation accuses of religious violence, has been the target of its threats.
This is not merely another instance of “gunboat diplomacy.” Trump is a prime example of the growing number of states that are breaking the law. Impunity is spreading as a result of the collapse of multilateralism.
Additionally, spheres of influence are being restored through the barrel of a gun in violation of international law, as in the West Bank, Gaza, and Ukraine.
Is the Donroe Doctrine reviving nineteenth-century imperial logic?
The New York Post first introduced the idea of the “Donroe Doctrine” early in the year. This is Trump’s interpretation of a 19th-century strategy that then-President James Monroe used in 1823 to try to keep other nations from invading the American hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine, known as a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, has now been formally incorporated into the National Security Strategy 2025.
In 2026, there are two conflicts that could exacerbate this legal void: the possible US attack on Venezuela and the potential resumption of the unresolved conflict between Iran and Israel from last summer, along with a renewed Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Are armed actors increasingly indifferent to global consequences?
Due to impunity, military interventionism is now just another tool at the disposal of governments or other international actors who are prepared to exploit an increasingly unchecked level of violence. The major powers are not the only ones who can use it. An increasing number of nations are tempted to use force to achieve their goals. 2025 left us with a string of unexpected conflicts that were confined in time and space, had unclear objectives, and resulted in a short-lived military escalation and a shaky ceasefire.
Examples of these short-lived border conflicts include the M23 militias’ offensive against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in January, the escalation between India and Pakistan after the Pahalgam attack in the Kashmir region in April, the week-long round of tit-for-tat strikes between Pakistan and Afghanistan in October, and the border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand that reappeared in December. However, these tensions do not completely go away. Not even with Donald Trump acting as a mediator.
Similar incidents may recur globally in 2026. Concerns about a new conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea have been rekindled in Africa due to their increasingly aggressive verbal sparring over the former’s demand for an outlet to the Red Sea and the latter’s alleged occupation and interference.
Furthermore, since the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam opened, Addis Ababa and Cairo have been embroiled in a conflict that has the potential to disrupt relations even in other nations, like Somalia.
