The Geopolitics of Unpredictability: How the World Became Unstable and Where It Is Heading

For centuries, geopolitics followed relatively stable patterns. Empires expanded or declined, wars were fought for clear territorial gains, and global power was shaped by predictable factors such as geography, military strength, and economic resources. Even in times of conflict, international relations allowed leaders and analysts to anticipate the behavior of states. Today, however, that certainty is gone.

The world is now defined by unpredictability. Traditional alliances no longer function as they once did, global conflicts erupt without clear solutions, and political leaders make decisions that defy logic and precedent. The return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2025 has not only reinforced this instability but has actively accelerated it. His administration’s moves—pulling out of the World Health Organization (WHO), slashing USAID funding, threatening Panama and Greenland, and announcing sweeping tariffs—are not isolated decisions. They are disruptive elements with a domino effect, reshaping global power dynamics and amplifying the unpredictability that already defined the past decade.

The Predictable Foundations: Classical Geopolitics and the Balance of Power

For much of modern history, geopolitics operated within defined systems. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the European balance of power ensured that no single state became overwhelmingly dominant. Britain, France, Germany, and Russia engaged in strategic maneuvering, but diplomacy and treaties kept wars contained and short-lived. Empires followed rational expansion strategies, and conflicts were typically fought over tangible interests—territory, trade routes, or resources.

Classical geopolitical theories reflected this predictability. British geographer Halford Mackinder, in his Heartland Theory, argued that controlling Eurasia’s landmass determined global dominance. The German geopolitical school, led by Karl Haushofer, focused on strategic land and sea power. These frameworks assumed a world where power operated according to geographic and economic principles, with clear cause-and-effect relationships between state actions and global stability.

Even during the two World Wars, while the scale of destruction was unprecedented, the conflicts themselves followed clear geopolitical logic. The motivations of Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union, and the Allies were rooted in territorial expansion, ideological struggle, and strategic interests. War, though brutal, was not chaotic—it had rules, and victory was defined by clear objectives.

The Cold War: Stability Through Rivalry

Paradoxically, the Cold War (1945–1991) was one of the most predictable periods in modern history. Despite ideological and military tensions, the world was structured around a bipolar order, with the United States and the Soviet Union shaping global events through a well-defined strategic competition.

Nuclear deterrence under Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ensured that direct confrontation between the two superpowers was avoided. Instead, proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Latin America became contained arenas of conflict, where both sides followed calculated strategies. The existence of stable military alliances—NATO for the West and the Warsaw Pact for the East—meant that international crises were often managed through diplomatic channels.

Even at moments of extreme crisis, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, both superpowers acted within predictable boundaries. There was an internal logic to the Cold War—an understanding that while both sides would push for advantage, neither could afford total collapse of the system. The world, despite its divisions, functioned within a structured framework.

The Post-Cold War Era: A Brief Illusion of Stability

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, many believed that the world had entered a new era of lasting peace and stability. The U.S. emerged as the sole superpower, globalization accelerated, and international organizations expanded their influence. The notion that economic interdependence would prevent future wars gained traction, as liberal democracies flourished and markets became increasingly interconnected.

However, beneath this apparent stability, fault lines were already forming. The rise of China as an economic and technological powerhouse signaled the return of multipolarity. Russia, after a decade of post-Soviet decline, began reasserting itself militarily and geopolitically. The Middle East, instead of stabilizing, became more fragmented, with failed states and extremist movements gaining power.

The 2008 global financial crisis marked a turning point. It was not just an economic downturn—it eroded trust in Western-led institutions and exposed weaknesses in the U.S. economic model. At the same time, China and Russia began challenging the post-Cold War system, increasing their global influence. The Western assumption that democracy and free markets would inevitably spread proved overly optimistic, as authoritarian regimes in Russia, China, and the Middle East tightened their grip.

Trump’s Return and the Escalation of Disruptive Policies

Trump’s first term (2017–2021) already disrupted the post-Cold War order, but his return to the White House in 2025 has accelerated the decline of global predictability.

His withdrawal of the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) has left a power vacuum in global health governance, which China is quickly filling by increasing its financial contributions and expanding influence in developing nations. His dramatic cuts to USAID have weakened U.S. soft power, opening the door for Russia and China to expand their influence in Africa and Latin America.

Trump’s threats toward Panama and Greenland mark a return to territorial strategic thinking, with Panama’s canal at risk of becoming a geopolitical flashpoint due to Chinese investment. His renewed interest in Greenland underscores the growing importance of the Arctic, as Russia and China militarize and expand their economic activities in the region.

The most immediate and tangible impact of Trump’s second term has been his sweeping tariffs on imports from China, Europe, and even allied nations like Japan and South Korea. This move is accelerating the fragmentation of global supply chains, pushing economies toward economic decoupling and forcing nations to choose sides in a new economic cold war.

The Domino Effect: A Cycle of Geopolitical Uncertainty

Each of Trump’s moves sets off a chain reaction, reshaping global alliances and power structures. The withdrawal from WHO strengthens China’s influence. The USAID cuts accelerate Russia and China’s soft power expansion. The threats to Panama and Greenland raise the specter of territorial disputes, forcing Europe and Latin America to reconsider their security alignments. The tariffs deepen global economic fragmentation, further eroding globalization.

Unlike the Cold War, where power struggles followed a clear strategic pattern, today’s geopolitics lacks a structured order. Conflicts and crises are no longer predictable. Nations are acting with greater unpredictability, and global institutions no longer function as stabilizing forces.

What Comes Next? A World Without Rules or a New Order?

The defining question of our time is whether this era of unpredictability will stabilize into a new multipolar order or whether the world is entering a prolonged period of chaos and disorder.

The structures that once governed geopolitics—alliances, economic interdependence, and diplomatic institutions—are weakening. Whether the world moves toward new rules or deeper unpredictability depends on how global powers—China, the EU, Russia, and the U.S.—navigate this transition.

One thing is certain: stability is no longer the default condition. The structured world of the Cold War and post-Cold War era is gone, replaced by a world where uncertainty is the only constant. Those who can adapt, anticipate, and navigate chaos will thrive—while those who cling to outdated models of stability will struggle in this new geopolitical landscape.