Disclaimer: This post is analysis, not judgment, of current events. If you're unable to make the distinction between me observing something is happening and saying it's good or bad, maybe this post isn't for you.
The old world is dead.

Up until quite recently, since the 1990s, there was a world order. The nations of the globe largely operated under a single, unified system with rules, agreements, and order. And, for better or for worse, that era has officially come to a close.

The deposition of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela by the US military really drove this point home. But the shift had already begun to happen years earlier. The concept of an overarching international law dictating the paths nations take is now a thing of the past.

The International Law Myth

First, let's actually explain what international law is, and isn't.

International law is a collection of agreements between sovereign nation-states. It covers things like war, borders, international sovereignty, and so on. The big thing people miss is that these are peer-to-peer, state-to-state agreements. There is no centralized, overarching governing authority.

Most importantly, there's no enforcement mechanism. Any country in the world can choose to respect or disrespect any international law they want, and if other nations don't really care to do anything about it, then nothing happens.

Most people who live in countries with a single government with a monopoly over the use of force, one court system, and an armed and active law enforcement body just can't quite grasp the fact that there is none of that on the international stage. There was an illusion of such for the past 30 or so years, but now the illusion is over.

The Liberal International Order Pretext

There was a concept called the Liberal International Order that presided over the world since the 90s, or possibly since the mid-40s. Essentially, as the US emerged as the dominant global superpower following World War II, it created and supported a series of structures to help support its global agenda along with its allies, in particular in the face of the newly-looming Soviet threat. These included most notably the United Nations and the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Now, these organizations presented as a new Liberal World Order, particularly after the fall of the USSR left no prevailing alternative order in the world. But in reality, they were almost entirely funded and directed by the US and its key allies, largely by the US itself. Essentially, the deal was: the US subsidizes other countries, and in exchange they play along with its agenda and add global world order legitimacy to essentially one country's wishes.

To be cynical: the only substantial difference between any random country deciding to invade another, and the US and its allies doing the same, is this pretext of Liberal International Order granting it legitimacy.

Every action of the US to further its interests abroad, from unprovoked invasions of sovereign countries to nation-building quests, has been done under the pretext of some greater Liberal International Order violation, while similar actions by Iraq, Russia, etc. were "internationally condemned" because of a lack of the Liberal stamp of approval.

The Change Catalyst: Trump

This all came to an end with the election of Donald Trump, partially in 2016, completely in 2024. But let me be clear: he was the catalyst, not the cause.

The cause is a general, inevitable shift away from the Liberal International Order stemming from dissatisfaction from citizens of Liberal countries who did not benefit from the global agenda of their leaders. Policies surrounding carbon emissions, COVID and healthcare policy, economic sanctions, immigration and refugee resettlement, surveillance and data sharing, free speech restrictions, high taxes and regulations, and more have all left hundreds of millions feeling disenfranchised.

Trump was a catalyst for this massive brewing shift. This was because, despite being a relatively business-as-usual politician across most metrics (he's no Javier Milei), he had two stark differences: decisiveness and lack of Liberal World Order allegiance.

Previous leaders moved more slowly after gathering (at least perceived) consensus from other Liberal leaders, and acted in the common interests of the above-mentioned agendas. Trump acts more quickly and unilaterally, and in the service of a different (but still existent) set of interests and agendas.

These differences will have half the world screaming about Trump being a brutal, lawless dictator, and the other hailing him as a world liberator and man of the people. How you view him in the context of other leaders past and present will depend on whether you see the Liberal International Order coming to an end as a good or bad thing. Historically speaking, however, the first group is wrong, as their world is about to be over.

The Order Breaks

When Trump won his first election, almost immediately the world seemed to come together in common rejection of a leader whose practical policies deviated relatively little from his predecessors. The Order saw an existential threat from an American leader who didn't want America to prop up this system anymore. And they were right.

Within weeks after Trump's second victory government administrations experienced collapses in Canada, France, Germany, South Korea, and more. The serpent had its American head cut off.

Now with increasing tensions between the US and EU over trade and online speech, and a decreasing willingness of the US to fund continued war in Ukraine, combined with the US pursuing its interests in Venezuela without first consulting the Order, it's looking like the dissolution is final.

The Deck of Alliances Is Reshuffled

Now that the rules of the old game have been broken, it's time to figure out a new game. Realistically, this doesn't look much different from the way the world worked before, just with different global alliances.

The US is busy picking new alliances (and enemies) around the world in alignment with its new set of interests. Europe can either strengthen the EU's control and agenda in an attempt to keep the old Order alive in some fashion, or may splinter. China looks to expand its influence with a Taiwanese acquisition, while other regional powers such as Japan harshly push back. The world is in discovery mode again for who their allies and enemies will be in the new era.

We may end up with a series of competing (and occasionally overlapping) alliances. We may end up with the US and new allies growing their influence enough to merit a new opposing alliance that takes the place the former USSR held.

But soon enough, we'll end up with a setup where the nation-state itself isn't the most relevant unit of power anymore.

Looking to a Post Nation-State World

This new shakeup is a precursor to the end of something much bigger: the nation-state as the dominant form of power in the world.

@thedessertlinux/the-end-of-the-nationstate-7tu

Tech lords and their corporate empires are starting to overtake many nations in wealth, power, and influence. Soon, it won't be governments representing people in fixed geographical locations that will make most of the decisions that matter in the world, but rather the heads of digital empires, some of whose "citizenry" may overlap.

The transition to digital empires ruled by corporate overlords will eventually give way to decentralized digital empires governed by a completely new and fluid set of power brokers.

But that's a discussion for another day.