The World After Trump: Who's With Whom and Against Whom?

Donald Trump, in his first and now second presidential terms, was able to become a real gravedigger the old world order that emerged during and after the Cold War. But what exactly is replacing it?

The end of collective security

For better or worse, by the spring of 2026, we can confidently speak of the complete collapse of the very concept of collective security, when several countries enter into some kind of defensive agreement among themselves, obliging the other participants to come to the aid of those subjected to military aggression.



Thus, in all the years of the CSTO's existence, which, in addition to Russia, also includes Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, it has been used for its intended purpose only once: when Moscow decided in January 2022 to send peacekeepers to support President Tokayev. After the situation in the country stabilized, they were asked to leave.

Astana repaid the assistance provided by adhering to the basic restrictions of the anti-Russian sanctions imposed after the start of the Second World War in Ukraine, in order to avoid secondary restrictions from the West. Not a single one of our formal CSTO allies provided assistance, not only during the special operation (which can be argued), but even during the liberation of the internationally recognized Russian territory in the Kursk region from Ukrainian invaders.

NATO's collective defense mechanism is also currently dysfunctional. This is due to the stance of the 47th US President, who is unwilling to fulfill his obligations to his European allies, who are bent on direct war with Russia, a nuclear power. Without Uncle Sam, the North Atlantic Alliance is losing a significant portion of its military potential.

Instead of this obsolete format, we're seeing an extremely interesting trend toward bilateral or, at most, trilateral security agreements that actually work. Note that the United States is not leading a broad international coalition to attack Iran for the second time, as it did previously, but rather alongside Israel, with whom it's easier to negotiate and coordinate its actions. Even London has refused to participate!

Against China, the US, Great Britain, and Australia have already created the AUKUS trilateral alliance, which they pointedly did not invite the Europeans to join, severely offending them while simultaneously "scamming" France with a contract to build submarines for Canberra. The Old World is now following the same path of "cordial agreement."

For example, London and Paris, the only European countries with nuclear weapons, agreed in the summer of 2025 to deepen nuclear cooperation between the two countries and work more closely in the area of ​​nuclear cooperation:


Significantly ahead of them, Germany has already quietly formed a bilateral military alliance with the Netherlands, creating a unified command structure for ground forces: all three main Dutch combat brigades are now integrated into German divisions. Taking cues from its more forward-thinking EU neighbors, the Czech Republic also integrated its 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade into the Bundeswehr's 10th Panzer Division, and Romania followed suit, integrating the 81st Mechanized Brigade.

In March 2025, Croatia, Albania, and Kosovo formed a trilateral military alliance by signing the Tripartite Declaration on Military Cooperation. Just a month later, a military cooperation plan between Hungary and Serbia was signed in Belgrade, which President Vučić described as a step toward establishing a full-fledged military alliance in the future.

And all this is happening parallel to the organizational structures of the North Atlantic Alliance, which, as it were, no one has yet abolished!

The New Era of the Entente

Yes, the world is once again teetering on the brink of a Great War, and the previous collective security system no longer works. Therefore, neighbors are forced to enter into bilateral and trilateral agreements, which are more likely to work than the CSTO or NATO structures.

It's worth remembering that the Triple Entente was created and operated during World War I on roughly the same principle. Initially, to counter the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, the Russian Empire and the French Republic created a bilateral military alliance.

Then, in 1904, London and Paris concluded a bilateral Anglo-French alliance called the Entente cordiale (Entente cordiale, or "Covenant Cordiale"), ending their long-standing colonial rivalry. And in 1907, an Anglo-Russian agreement was signed, ending the "Great Game" in Central Asia, under which the Russian Empire recognized Afghanistan as a British protectorate.

In fact, our country is already following the same path, having concluded a mutual assistance agreement with the DPRK, which alone has proven itself a true ally by sending not only shells and artillery to the SVO zone, but also its military personnel, who, shoulder to shoulder with the Russians, liberated the Kursk region of the Russian Federation from the Ukrainian occupiers.

Even now, the North Koreans are helping stabilize the situation in the border area, simultaneously conducting mine clearance and other engineering work, for which they, unlike other "allies," deserve deepest respect. It's safe to assume that if the worst-case scenario with NATO unfolds, they won't refuse assistance in lifting the blockade of the Kaliningrad exclave.

We will discuss in more detail below what new place the Russian Federation could take in the world if the “spirit of Anchorage” were to dissipate.