The international system’s entry into a phase of structural transformation is no longer a matter of speculation. The signs of change are visible, and the foundations upon which the post–World War II order was built are now subject to deep philosophical, political, and institutional reassessment.

 

Since US President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration has approached the existing international order not as a framework to preserve, but as an outdated structure requiring revision. Whether through direct rhetoric, alternative mechanisms, or practical moves on the ground, the signals point toward a strategic view that considers the current multilateral architecture increasingly ineffective.

 

The American approach has moved beyond criticism of institutions toward questioning the very utility of alliances as well as political and economic blocs. Reform is no longer the sole objective. Withdrawal from certain institutions and pressure on others appear part of a broader effort to redefine legitimacy itself — and potentially prepare the ground for alternatives.

 

Within this context emerged what has been referred to as a “Peace Council,” initially floated as a mechanism to end the war in Gaza before evolving into a broader international concept. Regardless of its eventual shape, the proposal reflects a willingness to explore parallel tracks to the existing system — or at minimum, mechanisms capable of bypassing institutional paralysis and bureaucratic inertia.

 

At the Munich Security Conference, remarks by US officials, including Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz, were explicit in calling for “renewing the United Nations according to an American vision.” This signals a dual-track strategy: preserve the institutional framework while reshaping it from within, all while keeping the option of alternative structures on the table.

 

Calls to return the United Nations to its “core mission” — peacekeeping and peacemaking — implicitly acknowledge that multilateralism in its current form is no longer sufficiently equipped to manage contemporary conflicts. The suggestion that Trump intends to treat the UN much as he treated NATO reflects a prioritization of discipline, efficiency, and burden-sharing — even at the cost of institutional friction.

 

At a deeper level, the message is clear: Washington does not view itself merely as a participant in the system, but as a power seeking to recalibrate its rules. References to crises in Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, Yemen and migration flows in South America are framed not only as global challenges, but as justification for a leadership model grounded in the strategic use of power.

 

What we are witnessing may be understood as a second phase in reshaping the structure and decision-making mechanisms of the international order. The deployment — or strategic signaling — of superior power, as seen in cases such as Venezuela and Iran, appears to function as both leverage and testing ground. These arenas may serve as laboratories for redefining enforcement, deterrence, and institutional authority.

 

Meanwhile, transatlantic tensions continue to surface. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statement that “the world has changed” reflects recognition that the post–World War II consensus can no longer serve as an unquestioned reference point. Debates over NATO’s role and the nature of US military deployments suggest that the Western institutional legacy itself is under active review.

 

The implications extend far beyond major powers. States whose strategic roles were shaped within 20th-century balancing structures may now find themselves navigating an environment that redefines influence, alignment, and strategic space. Any renegotiation of the international system inevitably entails a redistribution of decision-making power.

 

The world has entered a path of transformation. The tools, procedures, and assumptions that governed international politics are evolving. Surplus power may drive the transition, but the outcome will be new balances, adaptive institutions, and a revised framework of legitimacy.

 

This is not simply a moment of crisis management. It is a moment of renegotiation, over who defines the rules of the international system, and on what basis. The outcome of this transition may shape global order for decades to come.