We are navigating a profound historical conjuncture, characterized by a simultaneous convergence of systemic shocks capable of permanently restructuring the global architecture. While popular discourse often reduces the “Trump phenomenon” to the idiosyncrasies of a single populist leader, it is more accurately understood as a fundamental, state-level strategic realignment. It represents an American pivot toward a more transactional and assertive posture in response to shifting global power dynamics.

The premise is as follows: China, Russia, and Iran have achieved significant geopolitical momentum, challenging established Western hegemony. Crucially, their ascent was not facilitated by the “democratic peace” or institutional transparency, but through authoritarian efficiency. These regimes operate without the “friction” of liberal democratic governance—such as legislative debate, judicial review, or constitutional checks. This absence of domestic veto players provides them with a distinct tactical advantage, allowing for the rapid mobilization of resources and the swift execution of state policy.

A pertinent case study is China’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, where the state’s ability to bypass bureaucratic hurdles enabled the construction of massive medical infrastructure within days. Conversely, European liberal democracies found themselves paralyzed by deliberative gridlock regarding lockdowns and civil liberties, resulting in catastrophic mortality rates in nations like Spain and Italy.

Since the conclusion of the Cold War, these revisionist powers have exploited their centralized command structures to challenge the status quo, extending their influence beyond domestic borders through territorial annexation and kinetic intervention. Their foreign policy is decoupled from public consensus or independent parliamentary oversight, granting them a level of agility that the United States currently lacks.

There is an emerging realization among a significant segment of the American political establishment—often articulated by the Trumpian base—that while the U.S. remains embroiled in partisan legislative paralysis, global hegemony is eroding. The perception is that China and Russia are encroaching upon strategic “rimlands” and the American “near abroad.” Consequently, the argument for Geospatial Denial has gained traction: the U.S. must secure key strategic nodes—Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, and Greenland—by any means necessary.

From this “Realist” perspective, the procedural formalities of Congress and the Senate are increasingly viewed as strategic liabilities. The prevailing sentiment is that if these geopolitical pivots fall under adversary control, the “luxury” of democratic governance will become irrelevant because the sovereign state itself will be compromised.

This shift is likely supported by a “silent” coalition within the institutional bureaucracy—the so-called “Deep State” or shadow government—that favors a more unitary and unfettered executive. For those prioritizing national survival over institutional norms, Trump serves as a uniquely effective instrument. This necessitates a move toward a “Permanent Executive,” which may include efforts to amend or bypass constitutional term limits. In the current climate of existential competition, an extended presidential tenure is not merely a possibility; it is a strategic logicality.

However, a global order defined solely by Realpolitik and coercive force carries immense risks. The implications for the Global South, and the Horn of Africa in particular, are grave. The case of Greenland illustrates the potential for a “New Imperialism.” If the U.S. employs coercive measures against a NATO ally like Denmark to secure Greenland, the alliance’s collective security framework will effectively collapse, providing a vacuum for Sino-Russian expansion.

In fragile regions such as the Horn of Africa, the withdrawal of the “Liberal Rules-Based Order” in favor of raw power competition increases the likelihood of localized conflicts. As we have seen in 2026, the potential for regional escalation is at a decadal high. Without a stabilizing hegemon, we risk returning to a fragmented world where regional actors become proxies for superpower competition, echoing the most volatile periods of the 20th century.

While this analysis may be perceived as pessimistic, it is rooted in a Strict Realist framework—viewing the world not as we wish it to be, but as it is currently unfolding.

Adapted from my Facebook post in Amharic.