By Ramachandran Rajeev Kumar — 2026-01-23
The Great Realignment: Why the Old Order Is Giving Way
By Ramachandran Rajeev Kumar
We are living through a hinge moment in history. The postwar order—American-led, institutionally anchored, rhetorically committed to free markets and democratic values—is not dying so much as transforming into something we do not yet have words for.
This is not a eulogy. It is an attempt to understand.
The American Disruption
The most disorienting development of this decade is not China's rise or Russia's aggression. It is America's self-inflicted retreat from the principles it once championed.
The free market was supposed to be sacred. Open trade, comparative advantage, the invisible hand allocating resources efficiently—these were not merely economic policies but articles of faith. Generations of developing nations were lectured to liberalize, privatize, and integrate into global supply chains. The Washington Consensus was not a suggestion; it was the price of admission to the international system.
And then America walked away.
The tariffs of 2025—50% on India, punitive rates on allies and adversaries alike—represent more than protectionism. They represent betrayal. Not of any particular country, but of the ideology that America sold to the world for seventy years. If free markets were true, why is America abandoning them? If trade creates prosperity, why is Washington erecting walls?
The damage extends beyond economics. Trust, once broken, is not easily rebuilt. European capitals that oriented their security around American guarantees now wonder what those guarantees are worth. Asian nations that bet on American staying power are hedging furiously. Canada—Canada—has openly staked its independence from American leadership under Prime Minister Mark Carney, articulating a vision of middle-power sovereignty that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.
This American decoupling from progressive global action may prove temporary. Administrations change. Policies reverse. But the revelation that America can abandon its own principles when convenient has permanently altered how the world calculates risk. The altar of free market truth has cracked, and everyone saw it happen.
The Russia Mistake
Europe's approach to Russia has been strategically incoherent for over a decade, and the consequences are now unavoidable.
Russia is economically weak. Its GDP is smaller than Italy's. Its demographics are dire. Its technological base, outside military applications, is stagnating. By purely economic metrics, Russia should be a declining regional power, not a global concern.
But Russia remains a military superpower. Its nuclear arsenal is the world's largest. Its conventional forces, while exposed as less capable than advertised in Ukraine, remain formidable. Its intelligence services operate globally. Its willingness to use force—demonstrated repeatedly—is not in doubt.
Europe's error has been to treat Russia as both: weak enough to isolate, strong enough to fear. This produces the worst of both policies. Isolation pushes Russia toward China. Fear prevents the de-escalation that might pull it back.
The China-Russia axis is not natural. These are not organic partners. They share a long border marked by historical suspicion. Their economies are more competitive than complementary. Their cultures have little in common. Their strategic interests diverge in Central Asia, in the Arctic, in their respective near-abroads.
Yet European and American policy has forced them together. Sanctions, exclusion from financial systems, diplomatic isolation—all of this pushed Moscow toward Beijing not because Russia wanted to become China's junior partner, but because the West left no alternative.
Understanding and respecting Russian security concerns is not appeasement. It is strategic wisdom. Russia's anxieties about NATO expansion, about buffer states, about encirclement—these may be exaggerated, but they are not invented. A Europe that engaged with these concerns rather than dismissing them might have avoided the current impasse. A Europe that continues to treat Russia as an eternal enemy will ensure that the China-Russia axis endures.
The China Reality
China presents a different challenge—and a frequently misunderstood one.
The dominant Western narrative frames China as an aggressive, expansionist power bent on overturning the international order. This narrative has elements of truth, but it misses something fundamental about Chinese strategic culture.
China is not, historically or temperamentally, inclined toward sustained warfare. The Middle Kingdom's strategic tradition emphasizes patience, indirection, and the accumulation of advantage over time. Territorial disputes are pursued through salami-slicing, not blitzkrieg. Influence is extended through investment and debt, not invasion. When force is used, it tends to be limited and demonstrative rather than decisive.
This does not make China benign. Economic domination pursued "even at others' expense" is still domination. The Belt and Road Initiative has created debt dependencies across the Global South. Technology transfer requirements extract value from foreign companies. State subsidies distort global markets. China plays to win, and it does not much care whether the game is fair.
But the Chinese approach works primarily through proxies and economic leverage, not military conquest. Pakistan serves Chinese interests in South Asia. North Korea provides strategic depth in Northeast Asia. African nations align with Beijing through infrastructure investment, not coercion. This is imperial behavior, but it is not the imperial behavior of, say, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.
The distinction matters for one crucial reason: a world war requires fuel. Without a power willing to wage sustained, high-intensity conflict across multiple theaters, global conflagration remains unlikely. China has shown no inclination toward that role. Its occasional military posturing—Taiwan Strait exercises, South China Sea island-building, border skirmishes with India—remains carefully calibrated to avoid escalation.
Russia, by contrast, has demonstrated willingness to use large-scale military force. This is why de-escalation with Russia is not merely desirable but essential. Without Russian involvement in a global conflict, the third world war lacks the catalyst that could turn regional tensions into civilizational catastrophe.
The Emergence of New Formations
From this chaos, new partnerships are emerging.
The EU-India Free Trade Agreement, expected to be announced this week, is one example. Two billion people, a quarter of global GDP, democracies that share genuine commitment to rules-based order. This is not a marriage of convenience but a recognition of complementary interests and values.
Canada's declaration of independence from American leadership is another. Carney's articulation of middle-power sovereignty—the idea that nations need not define themselves by great power rivalry—resonates across the Global South and increasingly in Europe.
BRICS, for all its contradictions, represents an attempt to build institutions outside Western control. Its expansion to include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and others reflects widespread dissatisfaction with the existing order—not necessarily its principles, but its gatekeepers.
India's position in all of this is instructive. New Delhi maintained strategic distance from American leadership even when alignment would have been easier. It engaged with Russia when engagement was unfashionable. It pursued relationships with Europe, with the Gulf, with Southeast Asia, with Africa—building a web of partnerships that no single disruption can tear.
The result is that India emerges from this turbulent period stronger and more autonomous than nations that bet everything on American constancy. Strategic patience, it turns out, has compounding returns.
The Enduring Truth
Geopolitical analysis tends toward pessimism. It is easier to identify what is breaking than to see what is being built.
But human endeavor and endurance for positivity will always create new amalgamations and unions, irrespective of occasional disruptions. This is not optimism; it is historical observation. The Concert of Europe emerged from the Napoleonic Wars. The United Nations emerged from World War II. The European Union emerged from centuries of continental bloodshed.
The current disruption—American retreat, European uncertainty, great power competition—is real and consequential. But it is not the end of international cooperation. It is the beginning of its next phase.
The EU-India FTA is one step. The reformation of BRICS is another. Canada's sovereign turn, Europe's strategic awakening, the Global South's insistence on voice and agency—all of these represent not collapse but reconfiguration.
The old order is giving way. What replaces it will be built by those who see the disruption clearly and respond with creativity rather than nostalgia.
The great realignment has begun.
This analysis accompanies BarathVector's coverage of the EU-India FTA, India's BRICS positioning, and the Board of Peace.
Related Coverage: