Piskorski: 3 global Orders

We are likely to be in a turbulent transitional phase in which a fresh global order is born in pain. This transition from the single-polar minute (as Charles Krauthamer erstwhile described) to the multi-polar era.

Like any transformation of global order in history, this besides is characterized by shocks, labour pains and disorders. For the moment, therefore, there are 3 different systems of value between the 2 countries. Three, due to the fact that a fresh system, represented by Donald Trump and his administration in Washington, has joined 2 so far. Let us mention that the US president has previously signaled his preferred model of relations with another countries. However, he did this only at the rhetoric level. After little than a year, the presidency went on to act (aggression into Venezuela and its justification).

Let us so effort to look at these 3 different systems, starting with the preferred and presently implemented by Americans. Although it originates from the position of realistic global relations, it goes to a much more expansive level than it does. Washington now acknowledges that the usage of force or its threat is simply a condition for taking over fresh resources declared as their mark in a completely open, public manner, without any gardening and search for excuses, justifications. This is not a realistic position for a simple reason: Americans go far beyond their real potential, moving not only in the field of the conventional Monroe doctrine (dominant Western Hemisphere), but having ambitions to take over monopolistic control of certain resources in various parts of the globe. Let us specify their strategy of values in global relations as gangsterism, although of course it will be a working name and clearly valuable. It is not known whether any of the existing global and regional powers will decide to adopt a akin approach. Rather, it will be a purely American phenomenon.

Europe inactive has a very outdated position erstwhile it comes to global relations – globalist liberalism. His axiology became a collection of empty passwords. Today, statements about defending common values sound a small absurd due to the fact that practically no 1 knows what values they would be. After all, it is not possible to take seriously the declaration of respect for human rights by the murdering oppositionists and the Kiev authorities locking them into prison. Like the adherence to the principles of freedom of expression by the censorship authorities of the European Union and most of its associate States. Although values have become a meaningless extortion, European policy continues in their name. Globalist liberalism is dead, but the Old Continent is ready, at least for now, to drown with his rotting corpse. Together with Europeans, they would like to drift in the same direction by American liberals, but temporarily deprived of power by gangsterism.

The 3rd position is rather conservative. He believes that it is essential to comply with the legal rules which have been developed with the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations to order global relations. This approach assumes the key function of government as a regulator of relations between countries. This is simply a proposal that is not completely devoid of a realistic perspective, which accepts the category of sovereignty and national interest and the right to conduct policies aimed at pursuing this interest. China, the remainder of the Global South and partially Russia now stand on the basis of specified a system. Let us remember that the latter, erstwhile attacking Ukraine, tried to justify military intervention in legal and global terms in a more or little successful way. This was so not on her part gangsterism, but a disputed explanation of global law.

Poland is in a outlined context, among the 3 camps in the planet besides tiny to be able to freely choose any of the above models, and even more so to impose it on others. However, we can, due to our own interest, support the predictable world, and this can only be on the basis of a framework of global law, alternatively than a regulation of brutal robbery or airy “values”, which no 1 believes in and which nobody implements.

Mateusz Piskorski

Think Poland, No. 3-4 (18-25.01.2026)