in content lists or on the content page.
The international security environment is undergoing the greatest transition since the end of the Cold War, we wrote in our foresight review (in Finnish) published in December 2024.
We placed the crumbling of the rules-based international system at the centre of the transformation. At the time of writing, we were, above all, referring to China and Russia. We could not imagine that just over a month later, the United States, too, would join those crumbling the system with the determination we are now seeing.
During his short term of office, Trump and his administration have threatened the territorial sovereignty of allies, exerted pressure with tariffs, closed down the USAID, talked about the takeover of Gaza, questioned the state of European democracy, launched bilateral negotiations with Russia and declared Ukraine guilty of the war.
Finnish and European decision-makers as well as the general public have followed Trump and his administration with confusion and disbelief.
What is happening with the rules-based international system? Will it collapse? Why does it feel like everything is happening in fast forward? How can we create understanding in an era of surprises?
Understanding an era of surprises with foresight
We are looking for answers to the above questions from an endless flood of news and social media discussions. However, these are only likely to increase our confusion and uncertainty. Information is not what is in short supply in the world. Instead, we need a longer-term perspective on the ongoing changes and ways to perceive the overall picture of the ongoing transformation.
We aim to respond to this need in the foresight review. Although we did not specifically focus on Trump’s rise to power , the multi-perspective framework and overall picture of the transformation of the security environment provided by the review also help to understand the actions and objectives of the current US administration.
The surprises delivered by Trump do not come out of nowhere, but are rather a continuation of his first term. In addition, many of the developments driving the transformation predate Trump by a long time – and will continue after his term.
However, the foresight review is not a crystal ball that could be used to accurately predict what is going on in Trump’s mind. Instead, the review should be seen as a kind of map that provides a simplified picture of reality. In this way, the outline provided by foresight helps make sense of the current changes in the security environment and offers guidelines that help navigate rapid surprises and changes.
Information is not what is in short supply in the world. Instead, we need a longer-term perspective on the ongoing changes and ways to perceive the overall picture of the ongoing transformation.
Struggle for the future of the international system
By the transformation of the international security environment, we mean that we live in a historical point of discontinuity where many of the features and principles that, for decades, defined the state and functioning of the security environment will be challenged.
China and Russia have long tried to undermine the rules-based international system. International multilateral cooperation structures, such as the UN and the OSCE, have lost some of their operational capacity.
Instead, in a historical turn of events, the United States is now also trying to dismantle the international system built after the Second World War, largely created under its leadership. For decades, the system has served as a guarantee of peace and the foundation of Western influence.
What is common to the United States, China and Russia is that they are trying to undermine the current multilateral system so that they can create a new system based on their own national interests and aspirations for power.
The security environment is undergoing a transformation and it will not be possible to return to the old normal. This has been acknowledged in Washington, Beijing and Moscow, which is why there is an accelerating international struggle about the trends defining the future of the security environment after the transformation. A key characteristic of this struggle is that it extends not only to traditional geopolitics but also to the economy, technology, people’s minds and natural resources. The integration of these different dimensions into foreign and security policy instruments and battlefields can also be clearly identified in recent actions by Trump.
In addition to traditional geopolitics, the future of the security environment will be extended to the economy, technology, natural resources and people’s minds.
When looking for future trends, attention should be paid to discontinuities rather than continuity. The future is not just a linear continuum of the past, but something quite different. This, in turn, highlights the need to challenge and question the thinking models stemming from and reiterating the past on the operation and principles of the security environment.
In a rule-based international system, states are committed to shared principles, such as international law or agreements. For example, when Finland joined NATO, Finland was confident that the international rule-based order would be maintained and the NATO membership would guarantee security. The situation has turned on its head as the largest NATO member, the United States, is actively working against the principles of the international rule-based order.
Have Trump and the United States been regarded with the same naivety as Putin and Russia before February 2022? Which other assumptions will turn on their heads?
When looking for future trends, attention should be paid to discontinuities rather than continuity.
Europe’s role in the world
At a time when the United States, Russia and China, as well as the countries of the global south, are vying for the future trends of international order, the European Union and Britain are waking up to a new reality. In the future, Europe will be responsible for its own security, with the first critical test being its support for Ukraine in achieving at least a tolerable peace.
Since the Munich Security Conference, new alliances have also begun to emerge. Canada was invited to take part in the second emergency meeting organised by French President Macron and, correspondingly, Britain, as a European military power, attended Macron’s first emergency meeting immediately after the Munich meeting.
Baltic security has also relied on close Nordic co-operation and a JEF group engaged in defence cooperation, which has demonstrated its ability to operate in the Baltic Sea, for example in connection with severed cables.
It is often said that the EU is reformed through crises (in Finnish). History has shown that the greatest changes in the Union have not occurred through great visions, but as practical arrangements for preventing wars and managing pandemic situations.
The crumbling of the international rule-based system we are accustomed to creates the preconditions for a new order. Is Europe prepared to challenge its own and others’ perceptions of itself as a weak (in Finnish) security actor and to clear its way to the negotiating tables? What is the EU acting for – not just defending itself?
Is Europe prepared to challenge its own and others’ perceptions of itself as a weak security actor and to clear its way to the negotiating tables?
