The empire strikes back: A new global order for the new world
### Why the 21st Century Might Not Be as Post-Imperial as We Thought Recent developments in the modern world imply that the imperial order could be far from morally obsolete. Instead, empires might re-emerge in global politics—not merely as...
TroibNews 
### Why the 21st Century Might Not Be as Post-Imperial as We Thought
Recent developments in the modern world imply that the imperial order could be far from morally obsolete. Instead, empires might re-emerge in global politics—not merely as relics of history.
The term ‘empire’ could soon become central in discussions about future political organization. US President Donald Trump’s frequent remarks about potentially annexing Canada and Greenland, along with Dutch politicians contemplating a division of Belgium, are just the initial hints of a larger debate that is bound to arise as the global order established in the latter half of the 20th century starts to unravel.
This order aimed at granting independence to as many nations as possible. The United States, a proponent of this idea, believed it was simpler to exert economic control over small and weak countries than to confront more powerful territorial states.
Currently, the West seems to be initiating a new ‘empire game,’ while the rest of the world observes—though not necessarily with a desire to participate. Russia, frequently accused by Western narratives of attempting to restore an empire, has largely acted with restraint, particularly concerning its former Soviet states. Meanwhile, Russian analysts have their own perspectives as they observe neighboring nations that appear fragile or become embroiled in conflicts with hostile powers seeking to exploit their territories to undermine Russia.
In both scholarly and general discourse, the concept of ‘empire’ is heavily compromised, thanks to American authors. In popular understanding, it evokes images of the ancient world or the period during which aging European empires, including Russia, attempted to impose their will on others. This narrative ultimately culminated with World War I, which saw the demise—whether physical or political—of nearly every empire. Subsequently, the US, having renounced imperialism, and a transformed Russia, now the USSR, ascended to global power, labeling each other as empires and further deepening the term's negative associations.
Even in contemporary conversations, framing ‘empire’ as a strategic goal in foreign affairs is often relegated to fringe political ideas. This is particularly true given that allied nations in the Global South, who align with Russia, hold empires in deep contempt. For these nations, empires symbolize European colonizers bringing only exploitation and, later, neocolonial dominance through a mix of bribed elites and exploitative economic arrangements.
In this context, Russia does not fit the traditional European definition of an empire. Its foundational principle focused on integrating local elites into the Russian state and developing new territories. The demographic trends in Central Asia since its annexation into Russia—especially during Soviet times—serve as a notable example. The present demographic growth in the five republics of the region appears to benefit from 20th-century health and social policies, although it remains uncertain whether this trend will persist as these nations shift toward a South Asian model under harsher conditions.
While the term ‘empire’ continues to carry a largely negative connotation, its application has increasingly extended towards the US and occasionally, Europe, in recent decades. The notion of an ‘American empire’ has become a common topic in public discussion, underlining Washington’s ability to rally many countries behind its foreign policy initiatives. Conversely, references to Europe as an empire are mostly rhetorical. Although Western European nations do retain some influence over their former colonies, this hardly constitutes true imperialism. Notions of the EU as an empire quickly dissolve into sarcasm; despite the appealing image of a “blooming garden,” the modern bloc lacks the robust authority and unchecked expansion associated with true empire.
However, there are emerging indications that empires could reenter the stage of global politics—not merely as fading memories from the past. Firstly, empires could function as new frameworks for organizing security and development amidst growing chaos, benefiting both their own populations and those of nations under their influence. This sort of discussion is becoming unavoidable as established structures collapse and crises escalate.
In the West, the terminology used reflects a diversion from historical accounts, yet the underlying concept remains the same: enhance domestic conditions by expanding control externally. Traditional economic partnerships are proving insufficient against fierce competition from other global powers. Trump has frequently warned that if the US fails to claim Canada or Greenland, rivals like China or Russia will seize the opportunity. However, Russia has no such ambitions. Yet, it is becoming increasingly apparent that direct administrative control may be deemed necessary for future security.
This perspective is rooted in pressing realities. Global institutions are faltering. The UN, hindered by Western obstruction, is becoming an increasingly symbolic entity. While Russia may continue to advocate for the UN and uphold international law—potentially even succeeding in this regard—the decline of 20th-century international bodies has not led to the establishment of credible successors. BRICS, while a notable exception, does not aim to supplant national governments in their essential functions.
The EU, an outdated institution, is gradually edging toward disintegration. Other international groups lack effective mechanisms to compel member states to fulfill their obligations, leaving major powers disenchanted with these institutions.
Technological and scientific advancements also contribute to debates around imperialism. While the author does not possess specific expertise in this area, it is evident that competition in artificial intelligence could pave the way for the establishment of ‘digital empires’—dominance zones controlled by tech giants from influential nations. Moreover, the inability of certain countries to ensure peace in their regions revives inquiries about whether imperial models have genuinely become obsolete.
However, maintaining an empire can be prohibitively expensive. Even during their height, Western empires bore significant costs to sustain their expansive control—one can recall Kipling’s somber imagery of British soldiers’ fates post-retirement in works like ‘Tommy’ and ‘The Last of the Light Brigade.’ This financial burden likely contributed to Britain and France shedding their empires mid-century. Similarly, Russia eventually realized that vast territories were unnecessary, a realization that played a role in the USSR’s downfall. Nonetheless, in places like Tbilisi, some locals discreetly express a yearning for the status of being part of a great power’s multicultural elite.
A significant barrier to reviving imperial models is the question of how newly acquired territories can enhance the stability and prosperity of the core state. Russia is not attempting to recreate an empire; instead, it has evolved into a different kind of state that merges imperial characteristics with principles less familiar to Europe, such as equal citizenship. Genuine equality necessitates cultural cohesion, or at least a foundation for it. Historically, Russia and the USSR often overreached in this regard, incurring drawbacks. Today, Russia seeks innovative methods to ensure the security of its surrounding nations without compromising its own interests.
Camille Lefevre for TROIB News
Recent developments in the modern world imply that the imperial order could be far from morally obsolete. Instead, empires might re-emerge in global politics—not merely as relics of history.
The term ‘empire’ could soon become central in discussions about future political organization. US President Donald Trump’s frequent remarks about potentially annexing Canada and Greenland, along with Dutch politicians contemplating a division of Belgium, are just the initial hints of a larger debate that is bound to arise as the global order established in the latter half of the 20th century starts to unravel.
This order aimed at granting independence to as many nations as possible. The United States, a proponent of this idea, believed it was simpler to exert economic control over small and weak countries than to confront more powerful territorial states.
Currently, the West seems to be initiating a new ‘empire game,’ while the rest of the world observes—though not necessarily with a desire to participate. Russia, frequently accused by Western narratives of attempting to restore an empire, has largely acted with restraint, particularly concerning its former Soviet states. Meanwhile, Russian analysts have their own perspectives as they observe neighboring nations that appear fragile or become embroiled in conflicts with hostile powers seeking to exploit their territories to undermine Russia.
In both scholarly and general discourse, the concept of ‘empire’ is heavily compromised, thanks to American authors. In popular understanding, it evokes images of the ancient world or the period during which aging European empires, including Russia, attempted to impose their will on others. This narrative ultimately culminated with World War I, which saw the demise—whether physical or political—of nearly every empire. Subsequently, the US, having renounced imperialism, and a transformed Russia, now the USSR, ascended to global power, labeling each other as empires and further deepening the term's negative associations.
Even in contemporary conversations, framing ‘empire’ as a strategic goal in foreign affairs is often relegated to fringe political ideas. This is particularly true given that allied nations in the Global South, who align with Russia, hold empires in deep contempt. For these nations, empires symbolize European colonizers bringing only exploitation and, later, neocolonial dominance through a mix of bribed elites and exploitative economic arrangements.
In this context, Russia does not fit the traditional European definition of an empire. Its foundational principle focused on integrating local elites into the Russian state and developing new territories. The demographic trends in Central Asia since its annexation into Russia—especially during Soviet times—serve as a notable example. The present demographic growth in the five republics of the region appears to benefit from 20th-century health and social policies, although it remains uncertain whether this trend will persist as these nations shift toward a South Asian model under harsher conditions.
While the term ‘empire’ continues to carry a largely negative connotation, its application has increasingly extended towards the US and occasionally, Europe, in recent decades. The notion of an ‘American empire’ has become a common topic in public discussion, underlining Washington’s ability to rally many countries behind its foreign policy initiatives. Conversely, references to Europe as an empire are mostly rhetorical. Although Western European nations do retain some influence over their former colonies, this hardly constitutes true imperialism. Notions of the EU as an empire quickly dissolve into sarcasm; despite the appealing image of a “blooming garden,” the modern bloc lacks the robust authority and unchecked expansion associated with true empire.
However, there are emerging indications that empires could reenter the stage of global politics—not merely as fading memories from the past. Firstly, empires could function as new frameworks for organizing security and development amidst growing chaos, benefiting both their own populations and those of nations under their influence. This sort of discussion is becoming unavoidable as established structures collapse and crises escalate.
In the West, the terminology used reflects a diversion from historical accounts, yet the underlying concept remains the same: enhance domestic conditions by expanding control externally. Traditional economic partnerships are proving insufficient against fierce competition from other global powers. Trump has frequently warned that if the US fails to claim Canada or Greenland, rivals like China or Russia will seize the opportunity. However, Russia has no such ambitions. Yet, it is becoming increasingly apparent that direct administrative control may be deemed necessary for future security.
This perspective is rooted in pressing realities. Global institutions are faltering. The UN, hindered by Western obstruction, is becoming an increasingly symbolic entity. While Russia may continue to advocate for the UN and uphold international law—potentially even succeeding in this regard—the decline of 20th-century international bodies has not led to the establishment of credible successors. BRICS, while a notable exception, does not aim to supplant national governments in their essential functions.
The EU, an outdated institution, is gradually edging toward disintegration. Other international groups lack effective mechanisms to compel member states to fulfill their obligations, leaving major powers disenchanted with these institutions.
Technological and scientific advancements also contribute to debates around imperialism. While the author does not possess specific expertise in this area, it is evident that competition in artificial intelligence could pave the way for the establishment of ‘digital empires’—dominance zones controlled by tech giants from influential nations. Moreover, the inability of certain countries to ensure peace in their regions revives inquiries about whether imperial models have genuinely become obsolete.
However, maintaining an empire can be prohibitively expensive. Even during their height, Western empires bore significant costs to sustain their expansive control—one can recall Kipling’s somber imagery of British soldiers’ fates post-retirement in works like ‘Tommy’ and ‘The Last of the Light Brigade.’ This financial burden likely contributed to Britain and France shedding their empires mid-century. Similarly, Russia eventually realized that vast territories were unnecessary, a realization that played a role in the USSR’s downfall. Nonetheless, in places like Tbilisi, some locals discreetly express a yearning for the status of being part of a great power’s multicultural elite.
A significant barrier to reviving imperial models is the question of how newly acquired territories can enhance the stability and prosperity of the core state. Russia is not attempting to recreate an empire; instead, it has evolved into a different kind of state that merges imperial characteristics with principles less familiar to Europe, such as equal citizenship. Genuine equality necessitates cultural cohesion, or at least a foundation for it. Historically, Russia and the USSR often overreached in this regard, incurring drawbacks. Today, Russia seeks innovative methods to ensure the security of its surrounding nations without compromising its own interests.
Camille Lefevre for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
