Ο αγαπημένος μου Γιουβάλ Χαράρι μιλάει τη φωνή της λογικής. Προ ημερών
στους Financial Times:
Yuval Noah Harari: Trump’s world of rival fortresses
Published Apr 18 2025
The writer is a historian, philosopher and author
The surprising thing about Donald Trump’s policies is that people are still surprised by them. Headlines express shock and disbelief whenever Trump assaults another pillar of the global liberal order — for example by supporting Russia’s claims for Ukrainian territory, contemplating the forced annexation of Greenland or unleashing financial chaos with his tariff announcements. Yet his policies are so consistent, and his vision of the world so clearly defined, that by this stage only wilful self-deception can account for any surprise.
Supporters of the liberal order see the world as a potentially win-win network of co-operation. They believe that conflict is not inevitable, because co-operation can be mutually beneficial. This belief has deep philosophical roots. Liberals argue that all humans share some common experiences and interests, which can form the basis for universal values, global institutions and international laws. For example, all humans abhor illness and have a common interest in preventing the spread of contagious diseases. So all countries would benefit from the sharing of medical knowledge, global efforts to eradicate epidemics and the establishment of institutions like the World Health Organization that co-ordinate such efforts. Similarly, when liberals look at the flow of ideas, goods and people between countries, they tend to understand it in terms of potential mutual benefits rather than inevitable competition and exploitation.
In the Trumpian vision, by contrast, the world is seen as a zero-sum game in which every transaction involves winners and losers. The movement of ideas, goods and people is therefore inherently suspect. In Trump’s world, international agreements, organisations and laws cannot be anything but a plot to weaken some countries and strengthen others — or perhaps a plot to weaken all countries and benefit a sinister cosmopolitan elite.
What, then, is Trump’s preferred alternative? If he could reshape the world according to his wishes, what would it look like?
Trump’s ideal world is a mosaic of fortresses, where countries are separated by high financial, military, cultural and physical walls. It forgoes the potential of mutually beneficial co-operation, but Trump and like-minded populists argue that it will offer countries more stability and peace.
There is, of course, a key component missing from this vision. Thousands of years of history teach us that each fortress would probably want a bit more security, prosperity and territory for itself, at the expense of its neighbours. In the absence of universal values, global institutions and international laws, how would rival fortresses resolve their disputes?
Trump’s solution is simple: the way to prevent conflicts is for the weak to do whatever the strong demand. According to this view, conflict occurs only when the weak refuse to accept reality. War is therefore always the fault of the weak.
When Trump blamed Ukraine for the Russian invasion, many people couldn’t understand how he could hold such a preposterous view. Some assumed he’d been hoodwinked by Russian propaganda. But there is a simpler explanation. According to the Trumpian worldview, considerations of justice, morality and international law are irrelevant, and the only thing that matters in international relations is power. Since Ukraine is weaker than Russia, it should have surrendered. In the Trumpian vision, peace means surrender, and since Ukraine refused to surrender, the war is its fault.
The same logic underlies Trump’s plan for annexing Greenland. According to Trumpian logic, if weak Denmark refuses to cede Greenland to the much stronger US and the US then invades and conquers Greenland by force, Denmark would bear sole responsibility for any violence and bloodshed.
There are three obvious problems with the idea that rival fortresses can avoid conflict by accepting reality and cutting deals.
First, it exposes the lie behind the promise that in a world of fortresses everyone will feel less threatened, and every country could focus on peacefully developing its own traditions and economy. In fact, the weaker fortresses would soon find themselves swallowed by their stronger neighbours, which would turn from national fortresses into sprawling multinational empires.
Trump himself is very clear about his own imperial plans. While he builds walls to protect US territory and resources, he turns a predatory eye to the territory and resources of other countries, including erstwhile allies. Denmark is again a tell-tale example. For decades, it has been one of America’s most reliable allies. After the 9/11 attacks, Denmark fulfilled its Nato treaty obligations enthusiastically. Forty-four Danish soldiers died in Afghanistan — a higher per capita death rate than that suffered by the US itself. Trump didn’t bother saying “thank you”. Instead, he expects Denmark to capitulate to his imperial ambitions. He clearly wants vassals rather than allies.
A second problem is that since no fortress can afford to be weak, all of them would be under enormous pressure to strengthen themselves militarily. Resources would be diverted from economic development and welfare programmes to defence. The resulting arms races would decrease everyone’s prosperity without making anyone feel more secure.
Third, the Trumpian vision expects the weak to surrender to the strong, but it offers no clear method for determining relative strength. What happens if countries miscalculate, as often happens in history? In 1965 the US was convinced that it was much stronger than North Vietnam, and that by applying enough pressure it could force the government in Hanoi to cut a deal. The North Vietnamese refused to acknowledge American superiority, persevered against immense odds — and won the war. How could the US have known in advance that it actually had the weaker hand?
Similarly, in 1914 both Germany and Russia were convinced they would win the war by Christmas. They miscalculated. The war took much longer than anyone expected and involved many unforeseen twists and turns. By 1917 the defeated Tsarist Empire was engulfed by revolution, but Germany was denied victory due to the unanticipated intervention of the US. So should Germany have cut a deal in 1914? Or perhaps it was the Russian tsar who should have acknowledged reality and surrendered to German demands?
In the current trade war between China and the US, who should do the sensible thing and surrender in advance? You might respond that instead of seeing the world in such zero-sum terms, it is better for all countries to work together to ensure mutual prosperity. But if you think like that, you are rejecting the basic premises of the Trumpian vision.
The Trumpian vision is not a novelty. It has been the predominant vision for thousands of years prior to the rise of the liberal world order. The Trumpian formula has been tried and tested so many times before that we know where it usually leads — to a never-ending cycle of empire-building and war. Even worse, in the 21st century the rival fortresses would have to deal not just with the old threat of war, but with the new challenges of climate change and the rise of superintelligent AI. Without robust international co-operation, there is no way to deal with these global problems. Since Trump has no viable solution for either climate change or an out-of-control AI, his strategy is to simply deny their existence.
Concerns about the stability of the liberal world order mounted after Trump was first elected US president in 2016. Following a decade of confusion and uncertainty, we now have a clear picture of the post-liberal world disorder. The liberal vision of the world as a co-operative network is replaced by the vision of the world as a mosaic of fortresses. This is being realised all around us — walls are going up and drawbridges are raised. If this continues to be implemented, the short-term results will be trade wars, arms races and imperial expansion. The ultimate results will be global war, ecological collapse and out-of-control AI.
We can be saddened and outraged by these developments and do our best to reverse them, but there is no longer any excuse for being surprised. As for those wishing to defend Trump’s vision, they should answer one question: how can rival national fortresses peacefully resolve their economic and territorial disputes if there are no universal values or binding international laws?
www.kathimerini.gr
www.ekathimerini.com
