What name do we give to the historical era we are living in?

By: Ricardo Israel - 08/02/2026

What shall we call it? Personally, I no longer have any doubt that it is linked to the presence or return of geopolitics, a term that, like so many others, comes from ancient Greek, combining the words "politics" and "land." Despite lacking a universally agreed-upon definition, it refers to power relations between states, also applying to international relations, and regardless of scale, it deals with strategies, primarily those related to sovereignty, territories, economic exchanges, and potential conflicts. In general, it allows for decision-making using possible scenarios so that political action can be oriented toward future events.

We are undoubtedly living in a time of profound change. Giving it a name helps us avoid both nostalgia for a fading past and Trumpmania—that is, total dependence, whether love or hate, on him—allowing us to open our minds to the new that is approaching and escape the trap of calling this era "post-something," which ultimately explains nothing and even confuses, since reality is always stronger. We need only recall what happened with so-called post-communism when the USSR disappeared, with Russia as its legal successor.

We believe we know that internationally we are going through a stage of disorder, regardless of whether it is true or not, since that is the general perception and that the rules of multilateralism that prevailed for decades are mortally wounded, but then what should we call the era we live in?

I believe that geopolitics has taken precedence over economics, including the market economy that prevailed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although it's rarely mentioned, its importance has become visible globally under Trump, even though it has guided Putin's decisions since he assumed power in Russia more than a quarter of a century ago, and China has done the same since Xi Jinping transformed a collective dictatorship into his own personal one, as evidenced by the recent purge of military commanders. But, in terms of imitation, they are not the US, at least not yet in the Chinese case.

Many analysts attribute the current situation to Donald Trump, though this is inaccurate, as he neither created nor named it. The elements of the previous era's collapse were already present, such as the very visible irrelevance and inefficiency of the UN. Furthermore, Trump inherited an existing political movement that provided sufficient support for change in the US and other Western countries, although there is no doubt that Trump gave it meaning and direction, exporting the MAGA movement to other places.

It's a major change, but we don't know if it will last long enough to extend beyond his term in 2028, given that there are pending Supreme Court rulings on whether he has sufficient authority to impose tariffs and initiate or respond to disputes without prior congressional authorization. Furthermore, in a polarized country, there is no internal political consensus, and just as happened after his first term in 2020, a Democratic victory could nullify important decisions, since these are not laws, but merely executive orders.

However, even if that were to happen, and even more so, even if the White House fails, the world will no longer be the same, even though we still lack clarity about what comes next. In this regard, my estimate is that much will remain the same, since there are two certainties, as vast as Mount Everest, that will not change. The first is the confrontation that defines this 21st century: the struggle for primacy between China and the US. The second indicates that geopolitics will endure.

Unlike the Cold War, where ideological struggles predominated, such as democracy versus communism, today it is not a total competition. Capitalism is accepted as the best allocator of resources, but despite this, there are very contrasting views between the individual freedom capitalism of the US and the state capitalism that predominates in China, with broad government participation in decision-making.

Internationally, in this confrontation for global dominance, the great powers represent more than just countries; they are expressions of true civilizations: Confucianism in the case of China and the West in the case of the US, with a historical development marked by the triple confluence of Judeo-Christian principles, Greco-Roman contributions, and the legacy of the Enlightenment. Russia strives to be considered a great power, but it only achieves this status militarily, being of little importance technologically and economically, although it represents a geographical and territorial continuity in Europe and Asia, present from the Tsarist era to Putin, with the USSR being the form that the Tsarist empire took under communism. On a much smaller scale, Turkey under Erdoğan also seeks to be more than it is, reclaiming in this new era a kind of neo-Ottomanism, aiming to recover the past influence of the Ottoman Empire, of which it is the successor.

The global change we are experiencing was not started by Trump, who nevertheless accelerated it, and an expression of this has been Davos, whose World Economic Forum is the main meeting of so-called globalism, where he was now listened to with respect, unlike the mocking smiles with which he was received in his previous administration. Thus, 2026 was the first time that geopolitics was more important than the market at its annual meeting, as was evident in the reception of the speech of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who, a total critic of Trump, was applauded for his geopolitical arguments, despite his declared admiration for the historical era that is leaving us.

However, we must emphasize that the abundant nostalgia for the era that is ending is not always justified, since the signs of decline were visible to all who cared to see them. Thus, the system established after the Second World War showed its deterioration in various ways, beginning with the loss of US strategic credibility, particularly pronounced during the Biden administration, as well as the rise of China, which narrowed the gap year after year. Simultaneously, in several democracies, the visibility of those who had lost out on globalization increased, including areas and sectors within the US.

As has always been the case, this new phase will also have losers and winners, just as there were in previous changes, both big and small. It becomes difficult to seize opportunities when everything revolves around Donald Trump, requiring a cool head and avoiding acting on emotion rather than reason.

The future of geographical areas such as Africa or Latin America and the Caribbean appears problematic and full of obstacles, as they seem to lack what is called strategic intelligence in their decision-making process, including my native Chile, which, due to situations related to a past dictatorship, still lacks an intelligence service worthy of the name in strategic matters of the State, other than military ones, even in the 21st century.

As with any global shift, there is discontent and unease among those who felt comfortable with the disappearing order, not only in world politics but also in daily life and work, given the rapid pace of change in these areas. However, as Darwin taught in *On the Origin of Species*, survival is related to the ability to adapt, not to power or strength, as reflected in the extinction of the dinosaurs, whose human equivalents seem to predominate today in Europe, a continent suffering from increasing irrelevance despite its magnificent historical and cultural importance.

The only possible recommendation is to move away from relying on Trump as the sole explanatory factor, since it is detrimental not to understand the depth of the changes that are taking place, criticizing him more for the stridency and aggressiveness of some of his opinions than for the changes he is promoting.

Thus, today, in Ukraine and the Middle East, there are no peace proposals other than theirs, especially in Gaza. The US has once again become the indispensable power, a difficulty compounded by the lack of good biographies or even minimally objective studies on what is happening, and also by the Trump administration's inability to explain its intentions.

My recommendation would be to make use of the limited resources we have available. First, the book *The Art of the Deal*, co-authored with a journalist, and above all, the crucial National Security Strategy 2025 (and its derivative Defense Strategy), which, for the first time, provides context for what the U.S. is doing. I believe these should be required reading for all decision-makers, not only in the Middle East or China, but at every level. In Chile, it was clear that Kast made a poor decision in appointing two highly experienced individuals as future Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense, individuals who seemed better suited to the pro-market profile that prevailed in the 1990s than to the current one, where the decisions of major powers are driven by geopolitics.

The world is overflowing with information, yet many people still fail to grasp the major trends shaping our world. This is because too much information is built on sensationalism rather than substance, and teachers and communicators are failing to provide effective pedagogical guidance, as they continue to rely on outdated categories and frameworks from a world that is disappearing. In fact, there are media personalities who claim to be well-informed, but in reality, they are out of touch due to a lack of understanding of current events, preventing them from effectively explaining new realities.

At least until 2028, or until there is a consensus on foreign policy in the US, I have no doubt about three things: first, geopolitical decisions predominate; second, what is happening in places like the Middle East or Ukraine coincides with the undisputed fact that the order that emerged after 1945 is disintegrating before our eyes; and third, the existence of a change of the magnitude of AI or artificial intelligence, all for good as well as for bad, and with an impact that will be felt at all levels, both in those powers that manage to lead this process and in those countries and regions whose marginalization will increase.

Incidentally, this is not, at least not yet, a change of the magnitude of what occurred at the end of the First World War, which witnessed nothing less than the disappearance of four empires: the Tsarist Russian, the Austro-Hungarian, the Ottoman Turkish, and the German Kaiser's. Something similar took place after the Second World War when two countries, and only two, emerged as superpowers: the USSR and the USA. Furthermore, two great colonial empires, France and the United Kingdom, have since become middle powers, whose decline continues to this day.

What is happening today is not on that scale, at least not yet, but it is in fact comparable to the change that occurred between the fall of the Berlin Wall (November 9, 1989) and the dissolution of the USSR (December 26, 1991). I would venture to say that what is happening now is even more important, since however spectacular the end of communism may have been politically, the foundations of the economic order were not challenged then; rather, countries in Eastern Europe and some that had been part of the Soviet empire ended up integrating into the European Union and NATO.

It is undeniable that, especially during this second presidency, with a revitalized Trump who came prepared to accelerate his proposals, a paradigm shift has materialized in just one year, first nationally and then globally, with a depth that did not occur even during his first term. That is to say, institutions and rules created by the U.S. are now being modified by that same country. To this, we must add the agreements reached by the victors at Yalta, which were imposed or followed by the rest of the world. This imposition, let us not forget, also took place by force, although it was not the primary factor; for example, Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, as well as the first (1991) and second Gulf Wars (2003), after the U.S. had acquired the position of sole superpower.

This shift was driven by something that predates Trump, who, however, transformed it into a political decision at the highest level: the conviction that confronting China's rise required profound internal and international adjustments, both economic and political—in other words, pure geopolitics. It suffices to see how tariffs are used to reward or punish, decisions unrelated to economics. In any case, economically, tariffs are an instrument that seeks to modify multilateral rules through decisions and/or negotiations where the US wields considerable influence. At the political level, we are witnessing a profound modification of the Atlantic alliance as well as the multilateral order. The novel aspect is that attacks are not only directed against adversaries but also against neighbors and friends.

The power China has acquired is evident in the fact that, for the purposes of tariff negotiations, the US recognizes it as an equal, something it doesn't do with any other country, since Japan and the European Union readily accepted the new conditions. Unlike them, China is imposing a embargo on Washington for so-called rare earth elements, that is, minerals essential for new technologies and the advanced defense industry. Beijing was able to do this because, in previous decades, the US neglected these resources, allowing Beijing to enjoy a near-monopoly, regulating their use based on geopolitical rather than market criteria. If these negotiations between China and the US are successful, the combined power of both economies will be such that the rest of the world will have to adapt, whether it likes it or not. In practice, and without a general treaty, these will effectively become the new rules of international trade, replacing the outdated ones.

This negotiation between China and the US, the first on equal footing, marks a departure from the period of Washington's dominance following the collapse of the USSR. However, this is not the only difference, as Greenland also represents a departure. Citing geopolitical criteria, Danish sovereignty, which dates back to the colonial era, is being rejected. This gigantic island was incorporated into the kingdom simply by virtue of having reached those latitudes, as was common practice for Europeans in the 18th and 19th centuries, which should hardly be a source of pride.

In this new reality, the success of the United States is limited by a major obstacle: its domestic politics. Such polarization and division exist that there is no guarantee the country can maintain its course if the government changes. In other words, it lacks the national unity that prevailed in the past and enabled it to win the Cold War. This is a problem for what is still the world's leading power, as the Chinese dictatorship faces other challenges, but not this one.

Although Xi has not said so publicly, I am convinced that China has already set a date for itself to replace the US as the superpower of the 21st century: October 1, 2049, an emblematic day marking the centenary of the People's Republic of China created by Mao Zedong, today a nationalist China where Confucius predominates over Marx.

Moreover, this new international landscape is generating shifts in the individual balance of power of countries and blocs, where India, if it chooses to continue as a rival to China, could displace the European Union, Germany, or Japan as the third most relevant power. At the same time, in these times of geopolitical dominance, I wouldn't be surprised if the renewed dialogue between Washington and Moscow leads, in the not-too-distant future, to a trip by a US president to Russia with a similar, albeit reverse, objective to that of Nixon and Kissinger's 1972 visit to China to meet with Mao and Zhou Enlai. That time, the aim was to prevent China from being dominated by the Soviets after the chaos of the Cultural Revolution; instead, the world opened up to them, with the well-known consequences. The question is what could be offered to Russia to disengage it from its current alliance with China.

I believe in the need to understand the depth of the changes being attempted, which requires abandoning the fan-like approach of applauding or, more commonly, criticizing Trump simply because he is the public face. Many changes will remain even if the Republicans are no longer in government, just as the Human Rights policy survived the Carter administration, earning him not only a Nobel Prize but also becoming his legacy in history.

Today, the Peace Council has emerged, for now for Gaza, but, although it is not said in this way, it has the undeclared objective of replacing the UN in the mission for which it was created, but which due to bureaucracy, corruption or bias it stopped fulfilling quite some time ago, which is the maintenance of peace.

It is a world where new players are rising (India) and others are falling (Europe), and where, in contrast to globalization, we have returned to spheres of influence. Instead of supply and production chains, the aim is for these factors to be located closer to the companies' initial geographic location, ideally within their national territory. For this purpose, geopolitical problems are less significant than in similar shifts of the past. However, we feel uncertain because we don't know our final destination. In this regard, the Greeks' advice to every political leader remains valid: the ship of state must be steered by the helmsman to a safe harbor, whether in calm seas or storms. With Trump, the latter predominates over the former, a situation exacerbated by his way of speaking. This allows his issues to quickly gain traction, as everyone ends up commenting on what he says.

Regarding how long this prominence will last, there is the precedent of the War on Terror that followed the attacks on the Twin Towers, and, although with little media impact the Islamic State continues to be bombed, today more present in Africa than in the Middle East, the truth is that after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, that war disappeared as a symbol of an era.

Eight decades later, the US is attempting to replace the rules established in 1945, a move that could not only succeed but also endure. However, without Trump, momentum may be lost if the new framework is not enacted into law and there is no bipartisan support in Congress. Therefore, restoring consensus and unity of purpose is essential to confront a rival like China, which possesses economic power that the USSR never had.

This is not an opinion, but pure geopolitics. Moreover, this dominant presence shows that, unlike the previous period of economic dominance, when Napoleon seemed right in saying that the world would tremble when China awoke, this time, the sleeping giant that has awakened appears to be the United States.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».