What do you think?
Rate this book
Maktens triangel : om maktbalansen i den nya världsordningen
Den liberala världsordningen som växte fram efter andra världskriget – och expanderade efter det kalla kriget – håller på att nystas upp. Internationellt samarbete har fått ge vika för rivalitet och konflikt och globala normer har urholkats. Vad som händer härnäst kommer att definiera resten av århundradet och sökandet pågår efter ett nytt globalt ramverk – en maktbalans i den nya världsordningen.
I Maktens triangel argumenterar Finlands president Alexander Stubb för att ett nytt internationellt system håller på att ta form, drivet av tre stora krafter: det globala väst, det globala öst och det globala syd. I centrum står den eskalerande konkurrensen mellan USA och Kina. Med utgångspunkt i decennier av erfarenhet vid diplomatins frontlinjer uppmanar Stubb till en värdig utrikespolitik – och varnar samtidigt för att västvärlden kan komma att förlora sin plats i den värld det en gång byggde.
I Maktens triangel argumenterar Finlands president Alexander Stubb för att ett nytt internationellt system håller på att ta form, drivet av tre stora krafter: det globala väst, det globala öst och det globala syd. I centrum står den eskalerande konkurrensen mellan USA och Kina. Med utgångspunkt i decennier av erfarenhet vid diplomatins frontlinjer uppmanar Stubb till en värdig utrikespolitik – och varnar samtidigt för att västvärlden kan komma att förlora sin plats i den värld det en gång byggde.
326 pages, Hardcover
First published January 13, 2026
About the author
Alexander Stubb
21 books69 followersCai-Göran Alexander Stubb (Finland Swedish pronunciation: [ˈkɑi ˈjœːrɑn ɑlekˈsɑndær ˈstʉbː], born 1 April 1968) is a Finnish politician who has been the 13th president of Finland since 2024. He previously served as Prime Minister of Finland from 2014 to 2015.
Rising in politics as a researcher specialised in the affairs of the European Union, he was elected to the European Parliament in 2004 as a member of the National Coalition Party. In 2008, Stubb was appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs. In 2011, he was elected to the Finnish Parliament for the first time as an MP with the second-highest vote count in the election. He was then appointed Minister for European Affairs and Trade in the Cabinet of Jyrki Katainen.
Rising in politics as a researcher specialised in the affairs of the European Union, he was elected to the European Parliament in 2004 as a member of the National Coalition Party. In 2008, Stubb was appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs. In 2011, he was elected to the Finnish Parliament for the first time as an MP with the second-highest vote count in the election. He was then appointed Minister for European Affairs and Trade in the Cabinet of Jyrki Katainen.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
January 27, 2026
Read carefully (and think!): Competition, Conflict, and Power.
Read it again (and ruminate!): Multilateral vs Multipolarity
One more time (and decide!): Spheres of Influence vs Global Unity
Where has our world been, where are we now, and what comes next? Thoughts, ruminations, and decisions in a book that on one hand definitely does not have an original theme, but handled in a way that’s both easy for the layperson to “get” while avoiding fear-mongering.
With reviews of books like The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order--especially given the fact that I’m both a layperson and like all humans, possess a functional opinion-making system, it remains difficult to simply pen a review about the book without my own beliefs seeping in like O-rings on a space shuttle not forming correctly allowing contaminants and gosh knows what to cause mishaps. But I will throw rules to the wayside and state that the optimistic vibe that exists on every page does in fact emulate the way I see both macro- and micro-events of our world. We are in rough times and certain events—notably one that started in late February almost four years ago—definitely can be seen as major causes of world destabilization.
But is hope warranted? Or do we have here a book written by a blind optimist?
In a book such as this one that is less about covering new ground, but providing another look at familiar issues, I did not expect to experience any “euruka!” moments, but at least one did happen: we expect too much too quickly. Ages ago, downloading even a song would take 30 minutes, but now it’s instant. We click a hyperlink (or now just a ‘link’) and expect the page to pop up fully loaded instantly. We sadly now expect this of our government. We expect change when desired—and sadly due to shorter attention spans, this has now increased to fever pitch—and expect our governments to comply and to do so...well, quickly. Sadly (or not) democracies don’t work this way, but authoritarian governments do! Thus, an extremely salient point made by Stubb was just about this: real effective change takes deliberation and time. Doing something too quickly or simply because the strongman at the top decided it was so generally leads to bad things happening down the line.
To repeat the above as it deserves repeating: If you are the kind of person who reads the news frequently and sticks to middle/non-biased or even left-leaning sources that go light on sensationalism, the bulk of what is covered in here is probably not going to be new. I feel this almost is like Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945 by David M. Kennedy in that just how that book was technically a ‘no new information, but rather simply combining various sources’ type of book, this one is as well but with an almost shameless amount of a bias (not that the bias is bad as the author is pretty clear about what he has done and what he wants to see done and for fans of anti-despotic governments, it’s probably a message you may like too).
Will we see changes based on what’s noted here? Perhaps. In particular, it would be interesting to see if his UN proposals about adding more seats to the Security Council’s permanent members (“one from Latin America, two from Africa, and two from Asia plus ten rotating members” along with “eliminat[ing] single state veto power” and “suspending the voting rights of any security counsel member that violates the UN charter” (my transcription from audiobook’s conclusion) come into being. Obviously, according to what we are told, this was met with rousing applause except by...well, you can take a guess.
Read it again (and ruminate!): Multilateral vs Multipolarity
One more time (and decide!): Spheres of Influence vs Global Unity
Where has our world been, where are we now, and what comes next? Thoughts, ruminations, and decisions in a book that on one hand definitely does not have an original theme, but handled in a way that’s both easy for the layperson to “get” while avoiding fear-mongering.
With reviews of books like The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order--especially given the fact that I’m both a layperson and like all humans, possess a functional opinion-making system, it remains difficult to simply pen a review about the book without my own beliefs seeping in like O-rings on a space shuttle not forming correctly allowing contaminants and gosh knows what to cause mishaps. But I will throw rules to the wayside and state that the optimistic vibe that exists on every page does in fact emulate the way I see both macro- and micro-events of our world. We are in rough times and certain events—notably one that started in late February almost four years ago—definitely can be seen as major causes of world destabilization.
But is hope warranted? Or do we have here a book written by a blind optimist?
In a book such as this one that is less about covering new ground, but providing another look at familiar issues, I did not expect to experience any “euruka!” moments, but at least one did happen: we expect too much too quickly. Ages ago, downloading even a song would take 30 minutes, but now it’s instant. We click a hyperlink (or now just a ‘link’) and expect the page to pop up fully loaded instantly. We sadly now expect this of our government. We expect change when desired—and sadly due to shorter attention spans, this has now increased to fever pitch—and expect our governments to comply and to do so...well, quickly. Sadly (or not) democracies don’t work this way, but authoritarian governments do! Thus, an extremely salient point made by Stubb was just about this: real effective change takes deliberation and time. Doing something too quickly or simply because the strongman at the top decided it was so generally leads to bad things happening down the line.
To repeat the above as it deserves repeating: If you are the kind of person who reads the news frequently and sticks to middle/non-biased or even left-leaning sources that go light on sensationalism, the bulk of what is covered in here is probably not going to be new. I feel this almost is like Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945 by David M. Kennedy in that just how that book was technically a ‘no new information, but rather simply combining various sources’ type of book, this one is as well but with an almost shameless amount of a bias (not that the bias is bad as the author is pretty clear about what he has done and what he wants to see done and for fans of anti-despotic governments, it’s probably a message you may like too).
Will we see changes based on what’s noted here? Perhaps. In particular, it would be interesting to see if his UN proposals about adding more seats to the Security Council’s permanent members (“one from Latin America, two from Africa, and two from Asia plus ten rotating members” along with “eliminat[ing] single state veto power” and “suspending the voting rights of any security counsel member that violates the UN charter” (my transcription from audiobook’s conclusion) come into being. Obviously, according to what we are told, this was met with rousing applause except by...well, you can take a guess.
July 15, 2026
This will come off as more condescending than I mean it to, but this read like a European trying to convince other Europeans that Europe will remain a geopolitical heavyweight for the next few decades solely off the power of their massive shared market and regulatory capabilities. In a world that seems like its backsliding towards a state where open war between major powers seems possible again, it smacks of, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
The premise is agreeable enough: the post-Cold War world has settled into three rough axes and how they interact with each other now will set the tone for the rest of the century. You have the West (liberal democracies with free markets), the East (China, Russia, and other opportunistic friends), and the South (the rest of BRICS and Latin America + Africa writ large). The author - who is the literal president of Finland and had many amusing personal anecdotes about other world leaders - argues that while Western and Eastern powers increasingly grow apart and disagree on matters, it will ultimately fall to a reluctant South of the world to decide which method of governance (democracy or autocracy) will carry the day. He's realistic about the worst-case scenarios however, and I oddly expected an even more hawkish tone from a Finn than we got considering their eastern neighbor.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel however. Countries in general prefer to deal with larger multinational bodies like the UN, the EU, ASEAN, ECOWAS, etc. rather than a patchwork of dozens of separate one-on-one agreements. This book presents an argument for middle powers to have a bigger seat at the table, and reforming these international organizations and the permanent seats of the UN Security Council specifically, but doesn't do a good job convincing the existing members why they should cede their own power. Perhaps I'm too much of a pessimist to see how we get to that more cooperative future, but he directly points out that pessimism leads to inaction and optimism leads to action, so sure, let's give peace a chance.
The premise is agreeable enough: the post-Cold War world has settled into three rough axes and how they interact with each other now will set the tone for the rest of the century. You have the West (liberal democracies with free markets), the East (China, Russia, and other opportunistic friends), and the South (the rest of BRICS and Latin America + Africa writ large). The author - who is the literal president of Finland and had many amusing personal anecdotes about other world leaders - argues that while Western and Eastern powers increasingly grow apart and disagree on matters, it will ultimately fall to a reluctant South of the world to decide which method of governance (democracy or autocracy) will carry the day. He's realistic about the worst-case scenarios however, and I oddly expected an even more hawkish tone from a Finn than we got considering their eastern neighbor.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel however. Countries in general prefer to deal with larger multinational bodies like the UN, the EU, ASEAN, ECOWAS, etc. rather than a patchwork of dozens of separate one-on-one agreements. This book presents an argument for middle powers to have a bigger seat at the table, and reforming these international organizations and the permanent seats of the UN Security Council specifically, but doesn't do a good job convincing the existing members why they should cede their own power. Perhaps I'm too much of a pessimist to see how we get to that more cooperative future, but he directly points out that pessimism leads to inaction and optimism leads to action, so sure, let's give peace a chance.
January 2, 2026
Eesti keeles teos “Võimukolmnurk. Uue maailmakorra tasakaalustamine”. Sobiv jätk ja täiendus Stoltenbergi vahikorrale. Võimalus kaasa ja edasi mõelda, kompassi seada.
Ida, lääs ja lõuna. Multilateraalsus vs multipolaarsus. Korrast, kaosest ja kriisist koostööni. Väärtuspõhine realism ja väärikus. Nii inimeste kui poliitika osas.
Ida, lääs ja lõuna. Multilateraalsus vs multipolaarsus. Korrast, kaosest ja kriisist koostööni. Väärtuspõhine realism ja väärikus. Nii inimeste kui poliitika osas.
April 4, 2026
Jag tyckte han skröt lite för mycket om alla fina poster han har haft. Jag vet inte, jag fick för mycket Carl Bildt-vibbar. I en passage om utbildningsfrågor skrev han något i stil med att vi behöver satsa mer på 21st century skills och där lade jag nästan ner boken
June 30, 2026
"Pessimism leads to inaction, optimism to action, realism to solutions"
Stubb quotes himself near the end. I feel that this quote explains the message of the book very well.
Stubb sees the same world we do but be has analysis and optimism that have lead him to taking action on his solutions.
This book is a very good analysis of the current world order. In particular the role and view of the global South.
Only thing missing is a real discussion of the impact of AI.
The book does feel a bit repetitive with Stubb explaining the same points in multiple sub-chapters. But he does get his message across well.
Stubb can also be commended for walking the walk. He's acted on his own advice as president and has been a notably strong leader meanwhile most other Weatern leaders have been struggling in the current climate.
The one point that Stubb might want to re-read are his words on populists. Sitting as president for a party that has lead the populists to power.
To end I would like to recommend to my compatriots who are against joining the EU to read what Stubb has to say about small countries and international institutions.
Stubb quotes himself near the end. I feel that this quote explains the message of the book very well.
Stubb sees the same world we do but be has analysis and optimism that have lead him to taking action on his solutions.
This book is a very good analysis of the current world order. In particular the role and view of the global South.
Only thing missing is a real discussion of the impact of AI.
The book does feel a bit repetitive with Stubb explaining the same points in multiple sub-chapters. But he does get his message across well.
Stubb can also be commended for walking the walk. He's acted on his own advice as president and has been a notably strong leader meanwhile most other Weatern leaders have been struggling in the current climate.
The one point that Stubb might want to re-read are his words on populists. Sitting as president for a party that has lead the populists to power.
To end I would like to recommend to my compatriots who are against joining the EU to read what Stubb has to say about small countries and international institutions.
May 5, 2026
- Vår ferie fra historien er over.
Slik innleder Finlands president Alexander Stubb. Stubb har en imponerende internasjonal og politisk karriere, og er visstnok en vår egen statsminister Støre ser opp til.
- Europa må kvitte seg med ideen om at Europas problemer er verdens problemer, og at verdens problemer ikke er Europas problemer.
Dette sitatet fra en indisk utenriksminister fanger også essensen i boken og budskapet til Stubb.
Boken er engasjerende og spennende, med en god mix av historie og analyse av nåtidens verdenssituasjon. Boken er en oppfordring til handling. Ikke bare en analyse som kan legges tilbake i skuffen. Den engasjerer, og tiltross for det mørke globale bakteppet er dette en fin leseopplevelse. Jeg har virkelig kost meg med boken. Litt som å være tilbake på studiet i Internasjonal politikk i 2010.
- Relasjonene mellom land er til syvende og sist basert på relasjonene mellom folk.
Slik innleder Finlands president Alexander Stubb. Stubb har en imponerende internasjonal og politisk karriere, og er visstnok en vår egen statsminister Støre ser opp til.
- Europa må kvitte seg med ideen om at Europas problemer er verdens problemer, og at verdens problemer ikke er Europas problemer.
Dette sitatet fra en indisk utenriksminister fanger også essensen i boken og budskapet til Stubb.
Boken er engasjerende og spennende, med en god mix av historie og analyse av nåtidens verdenssituasjon. Boken er en oppfordring til handling. Ikke bare en analyse som kan legges tilbake i skuffen. Den engasjerer, og tiltross for det mørke globale bakteppet er dette en fin leseopplevelse. Jeg har virkelig kost meg med boken. Litt som å være tilbake på studiet i Internasjonal politikk i 2010.
- Relasjonene mellom land er til syvende og sist basert på relasjonene mellom folk.
April 9, 2026
The world that took shape after World War II was built on rules, trust, and a belief that cooperation could tame raw power. That framework is now badly frayed. Authoritarian governments are pushing outward, populist movements are pulling inward, and digital platforms have turned facts into weapons. Trade is retreating, tariffs are back in fashion, and global leadership (once assumed to flow naturally from the West) is openly contested.
As power diffuses, fragmentation has deepened
on power and behaviour
- It all comes down to the interaction of three spheres: the Global West (which includes North America, Europe, and its Pacific partners), the Global East (which includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea), and the Global South (which includes India, Africa, and Latin America).
- For most of history, large empires offered societies something they instinctively seek: order. Beginning with the long reign of the Roman Empire and China’s Qing realms, these systems created shared rules that organized people, territory, and authority. They were never permanent, and often brutal, but they brought coherence. Order, in this sense, has always been about stability – about arranging power so everyday life doesn’t tip into chaos.
- following the demise of the Soviet Union, the 1990s brought violent fragmentation in Europe. Western values didn’t fit well, especially when forced upon people who didn’t feel like they had a say in the matter. Russia’s failed transition, and the difficult expansion of the European Union and NATO, added up to a lot of disorder and instability, which laid the seeds for today’s authoritarianism. Then came the early 2000s, when, after 9/11, Western governments elevated security and attempted to shape outcomes through force. Western credibility took a dive, and the balance of power began to spread
- Emerging economies began to demand influence in bodies such as the World Trade Organization. Western authority weakened again with the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis. After that, the West became more permissive about rule-breaking abroad. By the 2010s, confidence in democracy, capitalism, and globalization was visibly thinning. Populism surged, Brexit weakened Britain’s role while China advanced with patience and long-term thinking. The shocks of the 2020s – pandemic, economic strain, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine – made the breakdown unmistakable.
- We now live in an unsettled in-between marked by fractured authority and shifting alliances. Countries such as India embody this moment. Dynamic and democratic, yet underrepresented, India is pressing for a larger role in forums like the United Nations Security Council, the BRICS, and the G20
on war and fragmentation:
- Russia’s decision to wage war was rooted in a national narrative. Russian history is taught as a cycle of encirclement and survival. The lesson is that power is earned through strength rather than diplomacy or mediation. Russia never truly embraced the liberal order that followed the Cold War. Its worldview treats international politics as a zero-sum contest where dominance leads to legitimacy.
- Ukraine occupies a central place in this thinking, viewed as essential to restoring its imperial stature. This belief extends well beyond the Kremlin. Militarily, the invasion proved disastrous. Russian leaders misjudged their own capabilities, underestimated Ukrainian resistance, and misunderstood the international response. Rather than dividing the West, the war pulled the European Union and the United States closer together, revitalized NATO, and pushed cautious states toward deeper security commitments. Finland’s membership into NATO alone reshaped Europe’s strategic map
- Beyond Europe and the US, many governments opted for neutrality or selective engagement, proving that Western leadership no longer commands automatic alignment. Even within the Global East, the reaction has been mixed. For China, the conflict was an unwanted disruption that also created leverage. Beijing balanced its economic ties to Europe against the strategic value of Moscow, keeping its support ambiguous and pragmatic. In the Global South, the response has also revealed fluid, transactional positions shaped by local priorities rather than inherited loyalties. India exemplified this approach, balancing democratic ties with the West against longstanding security relations with Russia
- a world increasingly unwilling to line up behind a single center of power, where influence and legitimacy matter as much as territory and arms
on self correct in the west
- The Global West is made up of the US, Europe, and its democratic partners, like Japan, South Korea, Australia and Canada. This group grew out of a long experiment in political and economic freedom. Across its societies, democracy and capitalism evolved in different shapes, from Scandinavia’s expansive welfare states to the leaner market-driven systems of the US. What links them is a shared commitment to open societies, individual choice, and the rule of law.
- Democracy remains the West’s defining strength, but it has become harder to maintain.
- Social media rewards outrage more than deliberation. Populist movements have capitalized on real frustration among voters who feel economically squeezed and politically ignored. In the US and across Europe, economic inequality, job insecurity, and cultural change have deepened political division
- the EU exerts global influence that often sets standards beyond its borders. At the same time, clashes between Brussels and national governments reveal how difficult it is to balance shared values with domestic politics
- Renewal has to be practical, not symbolic, and must include updating democratic practices for a digital age
on rewriting power:
- In the triangle of power, the Global East has emerged as the most direct challenger to the liberal world order. At its core stand China, Russia, and Iran, with North Korea increasingly operating alongside them
- China sits firmly at the top of this sphere. Its one-party system relies on long-term planning, large-scale projects, and a strong sense of shared civilization. State-driven capitalism has delivered speed, scale, and global reach, lifting living standards while concentrating power and controlling information
- Its major project is the Belt and Road Initiative, promising to better connect Asia with Europe, Africa and Latin America. Is the initiative about partnership development or creating more worldwide dependency? Fair question. What’s certain is that China’s strategy is adaptable. Its future points toward a hybrid model combining markets, central direction, and digitally enhanced authoritarian control. Russia’s path is far less dynamic
- States such as India, Brazil, South Africa, and Gulf powers are using the space opened by East–West rivalry to press for influence on their own terms. Demography is on their side. The Global South is young, urbanizing, and growing fast. But this advantage only works if governments deliver education, jobs, and opportunity at scale
on co-operation and next steps:
- Some challenges simply ignore borders. Climate change is the most visible, but it sits alongside pandemics, financial instability, food security, technological disruption, migration, water scarcity, and waste.
- While digitalization has expanded commerce, it has also displaced workers and fueled backlash. This, in turn, has resulted in populist politics, which undermines growth through protectionism. Small and medium-sized countries can’t navigate this terrain alone. A functioning World Trade Organization remains essential, and its reform has become a signal of whether the international system can serve emerging economies as well as established ones.
- Reforming global rules is unavoidable. Since 1945, institutions have evolved repeatedly. Another update is overdue. A complete reset would risk chaos. Incremental reform offers a steadier path: preserve what works, adapt what does not (one being international law)
- three possible paths ahead: uneasy disorder, systemic collapse, or a rebalanced order built on a new symmetry among West, East, and South. The hinge, he argues, is the Global South, whose choices will shape the next balance of power. The future is not predetermined. World order is human-made.
As power diffuses, fragmentation has deepened
on power and behaviour
- It all comes down to the interaction of three spheres: the Global West (which includes North America, Europe, and its Pacific partners), the Global East (which includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea), and the Global South (which includes India, Africa, and Latin America).
- For most of history, large empires offered societies something they instinctively seek: order. Beginning with the long reign of the Roman Empire and China’s Qing realms, these systems created shared rules that organized people, territory, and authority. They were never permanent, and often brutal, but they brought coherence. Order, in this sense, has always been about stability – about arranging power so everyday life doesn’t tip into chaos.
- following the demise of the Soviet Union, the 1990s brought violent fragmentation in Europe. Western values didn’t fit well, especially when forced upon people who didn’t feel like they had a say in the matter. Russia’s failed transition, and the difficult expansion of the European Union and NATO, added up to a lot of disorder and instability, which laid the seeds for today’s authoritarianism. Then came the early 2000s, when, after 9/11, Western governments elevated security and attempted to shape outcomes through force. Western credibility took a dive, and the balance of power began to spread
- Emerging economies began to demand influence in bodies such as the World Trade Organization. Western authority weakened again with the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis. After that, the West became more permissive about rule-breaking abroad. By the 2010s, confidence in democracy, capitalism, and globalization was visibly thinning. Populism surged, Brexit weakened Britain’s role while China advanced with patience and long-term thinking. The shocks of the 2020s – pandemic, economic strain, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine – made the breakdown unmistakable.
- We now live in an unsettled in-between marked by fractured authority and shifting alliances. Countries such as India embody this moment. Dynamic and democratic, yet underrepresented, India is pressing for a larger role in forums like the United Nations Security Council, the BRICS, and the G20
on war and fragmentation:
- Russia’s decision to wage war was rooted in a national narrative. Russian history is taught as a cycle of encirclement and survival. The lesson is that power is earned through strength rather than diplomacy or mediation. Russia never truly embraced the liberal order that followed the Cold War. Its worldview treats international politics as a zero-sum contest where dominance leads to legitimacy.
- Ukraine occupies a central place in this thinking, viewed as essential to restoring its imperial stature. This belief extends well beyond the Kremlin. Militarily, the invasion proved disastrous. Russian leaders misjudged their own capabilities, underestimated Ukrainian resistance, and misunderstood the international response. Rather than dividing the West, the war pulled the European Union and the United States closer together, revitalized NATO, and pushed cautious states toward deeper security commitments. Finland’s membership into NATO alone reshaped Europe’s strategic map
- Beyond Europe and the US, many governments opted for neutrality or selective engagement, proving that Western leadership no longer commands automatic alignment. Even within the Global East, the reaction has been mixed. For China, the conflict was an unwanted disruption that also created leverage. Beijing balanced its economic ties to Europe against the strategic value of Moscow, keeping its support ambiguous and pragmatic. In the Global South, the response has also revealed fluid, transactional positions shaped by local priorities rather than inherited loyalties. India exemplified this approach, balancing democratic ties with the West against longstanding security relations with Russia
- a world increasingly unwilling to line up behind a single center of power, where influence and legitimacy matter as much as territory and arms
on self correct in the west
- The Global West is made up of the US, Europe, and its democratic partners, like Japan, South Korea, Australia and Canada. This group grew out of a long experiment in political and economic freedom. Across its societies, democracy and capitalism evolved in different shapes, from Scandinavia’s expansive welfare states to the leaner market-driven systems of the US. What links them is a shared commitment to open societies, individual choice, and the rule of law.
- Democracy remains the West’s defining strength, but it has become harder to maintain.
- Social media rewards outrage more than deliberation. Populist movements have capitalized on real frustration among voters who feel economically squeezed and politically ignored. In the US and across Europe, economic inequality, job insecurity, and cultural change have deepened political division
- the EU exerts global influence that often sets standards beyond its borders. At the same time, clashes between Brussels and national governments reveal how difficult it is to balance shared values with domestic politics
- Renewal has to be practical, not symbolic, and must include updating democratic practices for a digital age
on rewriting power:
- In the triangle of power, the Global East has emerged as the most direct challenger to the liberal world order. At its core stand China, Russia, and Iran, with North Korea increasingly operating alongside them
- China sits firmly at the top of this sphere. Its one-party system relies on long-term planning, large-scale projects, and a strong sense of shared civilization. State-driven capitalism has delivered speed, scale, and global reach, lifting living standards while concentrating power and controlling information
- Its major project is the Belt and Road Initiative, promising to better connect Asia with Europe, Africa and Latin America. Is the initiative about partnership development or creating more worldwide dependency? Fair question. What’s certain is that China’s strategy is adaptable. Its future points toward a hybrid model combining markets, central direction, and digitally enhanced authoritarian control. Russia’s path is far less dynamic
- States such as India, Brazil, South Africa, and Gulf powers are using the space opened by East–West rivalry to press for influence on their own terms. Demography is on their side. The Global South is young, urbanizing, and growing fast. But this advantage only works if governments deliver education, jobs, and opportunity at scale
on co-operation and next steps:
- Some challenges simply ignore borders. Climate change is the most visible, but it sits alongside pandemics, financial instability, food security, technological disruption, migration, water scarcity, and waste.
- While digitalization has expanded commerce, it has also displaced workers and fueled backlash. This, in turn, has resulted in populist politics, which undermines growth through protectionism. Small and medium-sized countries can’t navigate this terrain alone. A functioning World Trade Organization remains essential, and its reform has become a signal of whether the international system can serve emerging economies as well as established ones.
- Reforming global rules is unavoidable. Since 1945, institutions have evolved repeatedly. Another update is overdue. A complete reset would risk chaos. Incremental reform offers a steadier path: preserve what works, adapt what does not (one being international law)
- three possible paths ahead: uneasy disorder, systemic collapse, or a rebalanced order built on a new symmetry among West, East, and South. The hinge, he argues, is the Global South, whose choices will shape the next balance of power. The future is not predetermined. World order is human-made.
January 24, 2026
Üle pika aja tõeline lugemiselamus.
Alexander Stubb – Soome president, endine peaminister ja rahvusvaheliste suhete doktor – kirjutab harukordse aususe ja mõtteselgusega maailma jõujoontest. Eriti sümpaatne on tema võime tunnistada, mida ta ei tea – omadus, mida tipp-poliitikas kohtab harva.
Kaks stiilinäidet:
„Olen kohtunud liidritega üle kogu maailma, kuid ma ei saa väita, et oleksin uurinud Kagu-Aasia majandust, Aafrika ajalugu või Ladina-Ameerika sotsioloogiat sedavõrd põhjalikult, et võiksin end pidada piirkonna eksperdiks. Samas aitab eksperdiks mitteolemine mõnikord paremini puude taga metsa näha.“
„Ma sain demokraatia tähtsuse kohta umbes viis minutit sõna sekka öelda. Karimov ütles mulle väga selgelt, et Läänel pole vaja tulla Taškenti moraali lugema. Püüdsin selgitada, et väärtused, sealhulgas inimõigused, on universaalsed. Tema silmadest oli näha, et ta pole nõus. Lahkusin kohtumiselt vapustatuna.“
2. Stubbi keskne mõiste on võimukolmnurk:
- globaalne lääs
- globaalne ida
- globaalne lõuna
Ida ja lääs on vastanduvad äärmused. Otsustav roll on aga globaalsel lõunal, kellel on vabadus valida, kummas suunas maailm liigub. See on kainestav vaade neile, kes usuvad, et demokraatia ja lääne väärtused on universaalsed ning iseenesestmõistetavad.
Stubb: „Mida rohkem ma kuulan globaalse lõuna juhte, seda enam mõistan, et võtmed, mis avavad uue maailmakorra, on nende riikide kätes. Miks? Sest neil on vabadus valida. Ja seda nad teevadki.“
3. Nauditav mõtteselgus – arusaadav ka huvitatud mitte-poliitikule
Raamatu suur tugevus on mõtteselgus, mis minu meelest hakkab välja surema. Stubb ei moraliseeri, vaid selgitab: maailmas konkureerivad ideoloogiad, majandusmudelid ja väärtused ning lääs peab õppima suhtlema uue alandlikkuse ja loovusega.
Kokkuvõte:
Mõnus lugemine ka õhtuti – mitte rusuvalt raske, vaid pigem inspireeriv ja mõtlema panev. Arvestades, millised on lood maailmamajanduse ja poliitiliste liidritega, kõlab Stubbi hääl kui „jumalik mõistuse hääl“ – just selline analüüsiv, mõistev, aus ja julge hääl on nendes tõmbetuultes puudu. Soovitan kõigile, kes tahavad maailma paremini mõista, mitte lihtsalt hinnata.
Alexander Stubb – Soome president, endine peaminister ja rahvusvaheliste suhete doktor – kirjutab harukordse aususe ja mõtteselgusega maailma jõujoontest. Eriti sümpaatne on tema võime tunnistada, mida ta ei tea – omadus, mida tipp-poliitikas kohtab harva.
Kaks stiilinäidet:
„Olen kohtunud liidritega üle kogu maailma, kuid ma ei saa väita, et oleksin uurinud Kagu-Aasia majandust, Aafrika ajalugu või Ladina-Ameerika sotsioloogiat sedavõrd põhjalikult, et võiksin end pidada piirkonna eksperdiks. Samas aitab eksperdiks mitteolemine mõnikord paremini puude taga metsa näha.“
„Ma sain demokraatia tähtsuse kohta umbes viis minutit sõna sekka öelda. Karimov ütles mulle väga selgelt, et Läänel pole vaja tulla Taškenti moraali lugema. Püüdsin selgitada, et väärtused, sealhulgas inimõigused, on universaalsed. Tema silmadest oli näha, et ta pole nõus. Lahkusin kohtumiselt vapustatuna.“
2. Stubbi keskne mõiste on võimukolmnurk:
- globaalne lääs
- globaalne ida
- globaalne lõuna
Ida ja lääs on vastanduvad äärmused. Otsustav roll on aga globaalsel lõunal, kellel on vabadus valida, kummas suunas maailm liigub. See on kainestav vaade neile, kes usuvad, et demokraatia ja lääne väärtused on universaalsed ning iseenesestmõistetavad.
Stubb: „Mida rohkem ma kuulan globaalse lõuna juhte, seda enam mõistan, et võtmed, mis avavad uue maailmakorra, on nende riikide kätes. Miks? Sest neil on vabadus valida. Ja seda nad teevadki.“
3. Nauditav mõtteselgus – arusaadav ka huvitatud mitte-poliitikule
Raamatu suur tugevus on mõtteselgus, mis minu meelest hakkab välja surema. Stubb ei moraliseeri, vaid selgitab: maailmas konkureerivad ideoloogiad, majandusmudelid ja väärtused ning lääs peab õppima suhtlema uue alandlikkuse ja loovusega.
Kokkuvõte:
Mõnus lugemine ka õhtuti – mitte rusuvalt raske, vaid pigem inspireeriv ja mõtlema panev. Arvestades, millised on lood maailmamajanduse ja poliitiliste liidritega, kõlab Stubbi hääl kui „jumalik mõistuse hääl“ – just selline analüüsiv, mõistev, aus ja julge hääl on nendes tõmbetuultes puudu. Soovitan kõigile, kes tahavad maailma paremini mõista, mitte lihtsalt hinnata.
August 23, 2026
The Triangle of Power is an unusual book in its genre, displaying a quaintly old-fashioned spirit that feels like optimism. Stubb makes some bold and possibly unrealistic proposals to construct a more stable and civil world order. Is it a fantasy? Perhaps, but as the historian Arnold Toynbee has written, “It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life that the most likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.”
Alexander Stubb is President of Finland, the small, happiest country in the world, which currently seems to be punching above its weight on the international scene. Middle power “bro” of Canada’s Mark Carney, a liberal European Union insider, he attended a U.S. university on a golf scholarship and plays the occasional game with Donald Trump.
The content of the book and the writing style could be described as technocratic verging on academic. For example, “to cultivate and maintain (internal) cohesion is the first of three major tasks for the west. The question remains whether this coordination will be concentrated in a few central settings like the G7 and NATO or be dispersed in many splintered fora. Second, the west needs to keep space in its antagonism with Russia and China for de-escalation and a differentiated approach by different western nations. Last, and maybe most important, the west must meet the challenge from the East by engaging more credibly with the global south, rendering the benefits of the liberal world order that it preaches more accessible and equitable.”
I found these types of airy strategic propositions off-putting early in the book but increasingly came to appreciate them as Stubb’s values and experience were revealed.
The idea that friction or adversity is a vital ingredient for progress for people as well as nations comes to mind as Stubb combines history, institutional knowledge and values to suggest ways forward in an uncertain world. Finland’s national outlook has been shaped by its uneasy relationship with Russia and the USSR. In a sense, Stubb’s prescriptions for a more stable world order build from Finland’s special talents as a nation struggling for security in the shadow of an unpredictable hegemon. Finland’s success depends on strong, stable national and international institutions supported by educated citizens.
Stubb’s values will be attractive to the liberal minded reader. Political balance in modern societies is best achieved when there is an acceptable level of income equality. Tax systems that support income re-distribution are not anathema to him. He writes that “as agile as the U.S. economic system might be, I worried about its distribution power, or more precisely, its lack thereof.” Further along, he writes “Returning to the U.S. in the 2020s feels like going back to the 1990s. The U.S. is not a modern society by European or Asian standards. The infrastructure is antiquated. Cars are absurdly big. Homelessness and poverty are widespread. Without radical change toward a basic welfare state, the political polarization will continue.”
Stubb is a thoroughgoing institutionalist. A safe, stable and fair world order can only be achieved, in his view, based on durable international institutions that balance both the values and the interests of the global West, East and South. “Peace is the ultimate public good”, he writes. Peace can only be sustained by constraints on the unbridled exercise of power by rival nation states, great and small. In our age, this is a necessity not only for nations individually but for civilization collectively. Toynbee again: “war has proved to be the proximate cause of the breakdown of every civilization that is known for certain to have broken down.”
Stubb notes with dismay the steady crumbling of crucial international agreements. Russia has left The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, The U.S. has withdrawn from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Paris Acord on climate is in disarray and the World Trade Organization is now largely ineffectual. He cites with approval the ancient rule of diplomacy “Pacta sunt seranada”, (Agreements must be kept.) “Abandonment of this rule”, he writes, “means a step further toward anarchy.”
It’s plain to see that the world order in the mid 2020s is at a tipping point. Stubb compares our current time to other pivotal moments in 20th century history: 1918, 1945 and 1989. Those instances don’t elicit a lot of optimism. The Peace of Versailles seeded the conditions for WWII. The conclusion of that war saw the Marshall plan and the blooming of international institutions to mediate the use of military power and led to world prosperity and stability. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 reverberates today in the maneuverings of the great power hegemons. One out of three ain’t great.
Stubb claims to be an optimist about building or perhaps reviving a more stable and just world order but he is no Pollyanna. He sets up a strawman of three possible futures.
One future is to stumble along in a state of disorder, pretty much in the manner we see in 2020s. “Respect for international rules and institutions would be a la carte, based on interests rather than values.” Alternatively, we could see the widespread collapse of international institutions and rules as nations try to navigate a hostile world vulnerable to the appetites of strongmen, warlords and non-state actors. This feels like the world we have already slipped into with the likes of Trump, Putin and Musk and his ilk. Finally, we could choose to work toward a world order based on symmetry between groups of nations comprising the Global West, East and South. This is the future Stubb advocates. As President of a small, successful Nordic republic he understands that his nation has little leverage on its own but believes that there are sufficient shared values and common interests in the world community to develop a new international architecture to increase stability and reduce the risk of war.
The Triangle of Power is not all geopolitical theory. There are also several practical suggestions for statecraft. The structure and core governance process at the United Nations, for example, has not changed much in the seven decades since world WWII while the world has changed fundamentally. Asia and the South have developed their economies and power. Stubb makes bold recommendations to revitalize the U.N. In a speech at the 2024 General Assembly, he proposed:
1. Expand the Security Council to include 5 additional permanent members – one from Latin America, 2 from Africa and 2 from Asia.
2. Eliminate the single state veto power in Security Council votes.
3. Suspend the voting rights of any Security Council member that violates the U.N. charter.
At this time in world affairs, one is tempted to ask, of these ideas, “when will pigs fly?” But back to Toynbee; not much important was ever achieved by shooting at modest goals. From the chaos of today’s great power rivalry there may come a time when the combined threats of territorial expansion, global warming, beggar thy neighbour trade wars and breakneck tehnological change may make such reforms more acceptable, even to the superpowers. They too have much to gain from stability and security in international relations.
Stubb’s book is far from an easy read. There were times, early on, when I considered giving up on it. Too technocratic and occasionally turgid. But I’m glad I stuck with it. Stubb is a relatable tour guide for international relations. He comes across as thoughtful, sincere and hopeful, never bad qualities in a person. He offers useful insights in a realm I have scant knowledge of. Any book that presents ideas on how to move forward and a few rays of hope is something we need in these uncertain times.
February 7, 2026
Not revolutionary, not horribly insightful. I can appreciate the self-reflection on one's own naivety.
September 16, 2026
Lite förenklat är Maktens triangel en bok som argumenterar för demokrati, internationellt samarbete och en regelbaserad världsordning – skriven av en person som själv befunnit sig mitt i de politiska processer han beskriver.
Stubb försöker teckna en översiktsbild av en värld där den gamla maktordningen håller på att förändras. Makt förskjuts, stormaktskonkurrensen ökar och de internationella institutioner som byggts upp efter andra världskriget utsätts för allt större påfrestningar. Frågan blir vilken sorts världsordning vi vill ha: en där de starkaste staterna dikterar villkoren, eller en där länder binds samman av gemensamma regler, institutioner och överenskommelser.
Boken ger en hel del inblickar från någon som varit med i rummen där besluten fattas, men blir förvånansvärt sällan särskilt personlig. I stället är det framför allt en politisk analys och ett försvarstal för internationellt samarbete. Det är en analys som jag i stora drag har svårt att invända mot. Samtidigt är framställningen ibland snustorr och budskapet stundtals nästan hurtigt förenklat.
På ett sätt är det ändå ganska härligt att läsa en översiktsbild som faktiskt gör världen lite mindre komplicerad. Jag plockar ut ett citat ur boken:
”Det ligger i nationalstaters natur att konkurrera: om makt, intressen, välstånd och resurser. När det inte finns tydliga internationella regler eller rättvis fördelning av makten för att reglera denna konkurrens blir konflikterna fler. Samma sak gäller ekonomin: utan tydliga, rättvisa handelsregler slutar det i handelskrig.”
Ja. Det kanske faktiskt inte behöver vara svårare än så för att förklara varför de internationella organisationer och samarbeten vi har är värda att värna.
Samtidigt är det svårt att inte fråga sig vem Stubb egentligen försöker övertyga. Kritiken mot globaliseringen kommer från åtminstone två ganska olika håll. Från vänster finns argumentet att kapitalet har blivit globalt medan demokratin, fackföreningarna och arbetarnas möjligheter att kontrollera det fortfarande huvudsakligen är nationella. Från höger och nationalkonservativt håll är kritiken snarare att globaliseringen har urholkat nationellt självbestämmande, gränser, kulturell sammanhållning och demokratisk kontroll.
Det hade varit intressant om Stubb i högre grad hade gått i närkamp med dessa invändningar. Att internationellt samarbete behövs är trots allt inte riktigt samma sak som att alla former av globalisering är av godo.
En återkommande kontrast i boken är den mellan Jalta och Helsingfors. Jaltakonferensen får representera en världsordning där stormakterna delar upp världen och dikterar villkoren över huvudet på mindre stater. Helsingforsprocessen representerar i stället tanken att stater kan skapa gemensamma spelregler och internationella överenskommelser. Inför klimatförändringar, krig, handel, teknikutveckling och andra gränsöverskridande problem är Stubbs svar tydligt: vi behöver mer samarbete och starkare gemensamma regler, inte en återgång till en värld där den starkaste bestämmer.
Jag håller i stora drag med om både analysen och budskapet. Och man kan knappast anklaga bokenför att vara ytlig ovh med ”Hänt i veckan”-journalistik men den kunde kanske ha känts mindre som en lärobok?
Stubb försöker teckna en översiktsbild av en värld där den gamla maktordningen håller på att förändras. Makt förskjuts, stormaktskonkurrensen ökar och de internationella institutioner som byggts upp efter andra världskriget utsätts för allt större påfrestningar. Frågan blir vilken sorts världsordning vi vill ha: en där de starkaste staterna dikterar villkoren, eller en där länder binds samman av gemensamma regler, institutioner och överenskommelser.
Boken ger en hel del inblickar från någon som varit med i rummen där besluten fattas, men blir förvånansvärt sällan särskilt personlig. I stället är det framför allt en politisk analys och ett försvarstal för internationellt samarbete. Det är en analys som jag i stora drag har svårt att invända mot. Samtidigt är framställningen ibland snustorr och budskapet stundtals nästan hurtigt förenklat.
På ett sätt är det ändå ganska härligt att läsa en översiktsbild som faktiskt gör världen lite mindre komplicerad. Jag plockar ut ett citat ur boken:
”Det ligger i nationalstaters natur att konkurrera: om makt, intressen, välstånd och resurser. När det inte finns tydliga internationella regler eller rättvis fördelning av makten för att reglera denna konkurrens blir konflikterna fler. Samma sak gäller ekonomin: utan tydliga, rättvisa handelsregler slutar det i handelskrig.”
Ja. Det kanske faktiskt inte behöver vara svårare än så för att förklara varför de internationella organisationer och samarbeten vi har är värda att värna.
Samtidigt är det svårt att inte fråga sig vem Stubb egentligen försöker övertyga. Kritiken mot globaliseringen kommer från åtminstone två ganska olika håll. Från vänster finns argumentet att kapitalet har blivit globalt medan demokratin, fackföreningarna och arbetarnas möjligheter att kontrollera det fortfarande huvudsakligen är nationella. Från höger och nationalkonservativt håll är kritiken snarare att globaliseringen har urholkat nationellt självbestämmande, gränser, kulturell sammanhållning och demokratisk kontroll.
Det hade varit intressant om Stubb i högre grad hade gått i närkamp med dessa invändningar. Att internationellt samarbete behövs är trots allt inte riktigt samma sak som att alla former av globalisering är av godo.
En återkommande kontrast i boken är den mellan Jalta och Helsingfors. Jaltakonferensen får representera en världsordning där stormakterna delar upp världen och dikterar villkoren över huvudet på mindre stater. Helsingforsprocessen representerar i stället tanken att stater kan skapa gemensamma spelregler och internationella överenskommelser. Inför klimatförändringar, krig, handel, teknikutveckling och andra gränsöverskridande problem är Stubbs svar tydligt: vi behöver mer samarbete och starkare gemensamma regler, inte en återgång till en värld där den starkaste bestämmer.
Jag håller i stora drag med om både analysen och budskapet. Och man kan knappast anklaga bokenför att vara ytlig ovh med ”Hänt i veckan”-journalistik men den kunde kanske ha känts mindre som en lärobok?
April 9, 2026
In The Triangle of Power by Alexander Stubb, we've learned that the rules-based order built after World War II is weakening under pressure from rising authoritarian powers, internal Western populism, and a shift toward transactional, interest-driven politics. Power has now spread across three broad spheres – the Global West, Global East, and Global South – and the interaction among them will determine what comes next.
Competition is unavoidable, but without credible rules and trusted institutions it will continue to drift toward conflict. Russia’s war against Ukraine exposed this reality, while China’s long-term strategy and the Global South’s growing assertiveness show that automatic alignment with the West is over.
Democracy and autocracy are now in a contest over who can deliver stability, prosperity, and security in a disrupted world. The way forward lies neither in nostalgia nor resignation, but in reform. The Global West must renew itself at home, share power more fairly abroad, and lead through example rather than instruction. Multilateral institutions – from the UN to the WTO – need to evolve to reflect today’s balance of power and give the Global South real agency.
Cooperation must be grounded in shared interests such as climate action, trade, security, and technological governance. All of this leads to practicing values-based realism paired with dignified foreign policy, which means staying true to democratic principles while engaging respectfully with those who do not share them.
Competition is unavoidable, but without credible rules and trusted institutions it will continue to drift toward conflict. Russia’s war against Ukraine exposed this reality, while China’s long-term strategy and the Global South’s growing assertiveness show that automatic alignment with the West is over.
Democracy and autocracy are now in a contest over who can deliver stability, prosperity, and security in a disrupted world. The way forward lies neither in nostalgia nor resignation, but in reform. The Global West must renew itself at home, share power more fairly abroad, and lead through example rather than instruction. Multilateral institutions – from the UN to the WTO – need to evolve to reflect today’s balance of power and give the Global South real agency.
Cooperation must be grounded in shared interests such as climate action, trade, security, and technological governance. All of this leads to practicing values-based realism paired with dignified foreign policy, which means staying true to democratic principles while engaging respectfully with those who do not share them.
June 30, 2026
I really appreciate Alexander Stubb as a leader, especially at a time when there seems to be a crisis of leadership. He comes across as smart and capable.
The book, however, didn’t impress me. If you already follow geopolitics, there isn’t much that feels new. Even though Stubb writes about today’s changing world, I still see him as a leader from the old world order.
Maybe that’s just how books by active politicians are. They have to stay diplomatic and avoid saying anything that could create problems with other world leaders. Because of that, the book felt a bit too safe and, to be honest, a little boring.
The book, however, didn’t impress me. If you already follow geopolitics, there isn’t much that feels new. Even though Stubb writes about today’s changing world, I still see him as a leader from the old world order.
Maybe that’s just how books by active politicians are. They have to stay diplomatic and avoid saying anything that could create problems with other world leaders. Because of that, the book felt a bit too safe and, to be honest, a little boring.
April 5, 2026
Kunnskapsrik bok med flere gode poenger, men blir i overkant repeterende, med vesentlig preg av idealisme og 90-tallsglobalisme. Kort oppsummert: «multilateralisme og demokrati er bra, multipolaritet og autokrati er dårlig.» Fremhever EUs evne til regulering som noe positivt, samtidig som det hoppes bukk over slikt som manglende økonomisk vekst og overnasjonal styring. Av en eller annen grunn hadde jeg forventet et bredere, nøytralt perspektiv.
September 8, 2026
nii meeldib stubb yleyldiselt ja see raamat syvendas minu vaimustust veelgi. see on mingite asjade koha pealt (eneseteadlikult) lihtsustav ja selline laiale (aga mitte liiga) lugejaskonnale suunatud aga sellegipoolest teeb mu meelest hea katse prgst yleilmset olukorda selgitada ja sellega toimetulemiseks häid lahendusi pakkuda. ja no tema selline väärtused-ja-väärikus stiil on niikuinii praegu väga vajalikud aga need on ka tegelt ainuõiged kui tahta kuidagigi prg maailmas hakkama saada (langemata ise roppurite diilid-ja-toores-jõud tasemele).
aga tõlkimistöö oli kyll pehmelt öeldes ropp. ei vaevutud eriti inglislike käibefraaside eestistamisega, eestipärase lausestruktuuri loomisega, raamatus pidevalt esineva sõna "dekaad" õige tõlkimisega (dekaad on ee k siiski kümme päeva)...
aga tõlkimistöö oli kyll pehmelt öeldes ropp. ei vaevutud eriti inglislike käibefraaside eestistamisega, eestipärase lausestruktuuri loomisega, raamatus pidevalt esineva sõna "dekaad" õige tõlkimisega (dekaad on ee k siiski kümme päeva)...
February 22, 2026
Reflections on the revolution in geopolitics the past decade from a Finnish point of view.
Most of the book is high level abstractions on changing international relations post-Trump, post invasion of Ukraine, post rise of China. Sometimes Alexander Stubb tells personal stories from his youth or from his long career in foreign policy, but this is mostly to explain power dynamics.
If this book wasn't authored by a head of state, it would be like reading an unexciting standard (European) International Relations textbook.
Stubb is a great explainer of the consensus view of international policy among Nordic Governing Political Parties. So, it's probably an excellent intro (4⭐) for Non-European readers who want to know the Nordic view of international relations. To Nordic readers who follow the news, it's probably not so many insights.
According to Stubb, the "Triangle model" is the future is determined by the interactions between the West (US/Europe/Japan), "East" (China+Russia), and the "South" ie the emerging powers like India/Saudi Arabia.
Most of the book is high level abstractions on changing international relations post-Trump, post invasion of Ukraine, post rise of China. Sometimes Alexander Stubb tells personal stories from his youth or from his long career in foreign policy, but this is mostly to explain power dynamics.
If this book wasn't authored by a head of state, it would be like reading an unexciting standard (European) International Relations textbook.
Stubb is a great explainer of the consensus view of international policy among Nordic Governing Political Parties. So, it's probably an excellent intro (4⭐) for Non-European readers who want to know the Nordic view of international relations. To Nordic readers who follow the news, it's probably not so many insights.
According to Stubb, the "Triangle model" is the future is determined by the interactions between the West (US/Europe/Japan), "East" (China+Russia), and the "South" ie the emerging powers like India/Saudi Arabia.
April 25, 2026
Mycket läsvärd och en bra grund för reflektion kring världen nu och framåt.
June 21, 2026
God innføring i hvordan Stubb tenker normativt om verdens fremtid.
Personlig tenker jeg denne kunne vært 160 sider kortere.
Personlig tenker jeg denne kunne vært 160 sider kortere.
October 10, 2026
Values-based world order should prevail 👌 deep and beautiful reading on how to run foreign policy and be a good leader (communicator). “Humbility to listen and flexibility to adapt”
July 18, 2026
Very interesting to read on Stubb's take on modern politics and the importance of modern institutions like the UN and global cooperation. On a first read I think there is quite a bit I agree with Stubb on, and a interested to hear more of his theories, it is notable thought to see that the book is already a little dated.
July 31, 2026
Great overview of world affairs and power sharing.
April 7, 2026
I think the blocks framework for analysing today's geopolitical dynamics falls short; however, some of the ideas for a path forward are rooted in profound knowledge and understanding of the role of diplomacy and multilateralism.
Read
September 23, 2026to be honest, I didn’t read the whole thing, but how else am I supposed to flex that I met the president of Finland?
February 18, 2026
A staunch reminder to never read a book by an active politician...
January 31, 2026
President Stubb accounts for what is perhaps the most humble, reasonable and honest view of the world as we know it today. Value-based realism, which lays the foundation for a decent foreign policy, is arguably the best way in which we can act - locally, regionally and internationally. Democracy is the best we have, but it is not free from faults and other parts of the world have other traditions, cultures, and reasons for their way of living. These thoughts are not contrary, and must be a cornerstone for relationship-based diplomacy at all times.
Without abandoning the traditional democratic values, he admits to the historical faults and double standards of the western colonial powers and acknowledges the fact that global south has paid (and pays) a disproportionately high price for both climate change and economic prosperity. This provides an important context in explaining the importance of global south the coming decades and why south will be deciding factor in which way the pendulum moves between west and east. Also, the book pedagogically describes China’s emergence as a global powerhouse as opposed to Russia’s decline.
Without abandoning the traditional democratic values, he admits to the historical faults and double standards of the western colonial powers and acknowledges the fact that global south has paid (and pays) a disproportionately high price for both climate change and economic prosperity. This provides an important context in explaining the importance of global south the coming decades and why south will be deciding factor in which way the pendulum moves between west and east. Also, the book pedagogically describes China’s emergence as a global powerhouse as opposed to Russia’s decline.
Read
April 10, 2026"The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order" by Alexander Stubb examines how the global system that emerged after World War II is steadily unraveling and being replaced by something far less stable and predictable. The postwar order was built on shared rules, trust in institutions, and the belief that cooperation could manage power. For decades, especially after the Cold War, it appeared that this framework would endure, with the West at its center. But that assumption has weakened significantly. Today’s world is marked by rising authoritarian influence, growing populism within democracies, and the disruptive role of digital platforms that blur truth and amplify division. Trade tensions, geopolitical rivalry, and contested leadership have all contributed to a fragmented landscape where no single power dominates. Stubb frames this emerging reality as a triangle made up of three major spheres - the Global West, the Global East, and the Global South - whose interactions will determine the future of international order.
To understand how this shift occurred, the book traces the evolution of power and order over time. Historically, large empires provided structure and stability, even if they were imperfect and often oppressive. Over time, this idea of order expanded into a global system of sovereign states, formalized through agreements that emphasized legal equality and defined boundaries. This system held relatively firm during the Cold War, when two opposing blocs maintained a tense but structured balance. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the world entered a period of apparent unity under Western leadership. Yet beneath that surface, instability was already growing. The expansion of Western institutions did not always align with local realities, particularly in regions where people felt excluded from decision-making. Russia’s difficult transition after the Cold War, combined with Western interventions and crises such as the Iraq War and the 2008 financial collapse, gradually eroded confidence in the system. By the 2010s and early 2020s, with events like Brexit, the pandemic, and renewed geopolitical conflict, it became clear that the old order had lost its coherence.
One of the clearest illustrations of this breakdown is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which the book presents as a turning point in global alignment. Unlike earlier conflicts, this war did not produce a unified international response. Instead, countries reacted based on their own strategic interests, revealing a world no longer willing to follow a single leader. Russia’s actions were rooted in its historical perspective, one that emphasizes strength, survival, and distrust of external influence. While the invasion strengthened Western alliances and revitalized institutions like NATO, it also exposed the limits of Western influence globally. Many countries, particularly in the Global South, chose neutrality or selective engagement, reflecting a more pragmatic and less ideological approach to international relations. Even within the Global East, responses were varied, with China balancing its strategic interests carefully rather than offering unconditional support.
The Global West, composed of the United States, Europe, and their democratic allies, remains a powerful force, but it is under significant internal strain. Its strength lies in democratic governance, economic depth, and technological innovation, yet these advantages are increasingly challenged by domestic divisions. Rising inequality, political polarization, and the rapid influence of digital media have made it harder for democratic systems to function smoothly. Populist movements have gained traction by tapping into public dissatisfaction, questioning established institutions and policies. While the West continues to promote values such as freedom and rule of law, its credibility depends on its ability to address these internal challenges and deliver tangible improvements in people’s lives. Externally, it must also adapt to a world where its authority is no longer taken for granted and where cooperation requires genuine partnership rather than direction.
At the same time, the Global East is reshaping power dynamics through a different model of governance and strategy. Led primarily by China, and supported by countries like Russia and Iran, this group does not form a unified ideological bloc but shares a resistance to Western dominance. China, in particular, stands out for its long-term planning, state-driven economic model, and global ambitions, exemplified by initiatives that expand its influence across continents. Its approach combines market mechanisms with centralized control, creating a hybrid system that challenges traditional Western models. Russia, by contrast, faces economic and institutional limitations, while Iran operates within regional constraints. Together, these nations contribute to a more multipolar world where power is distributed and alliances are flexible.
Perhaps the most dynamic and deciding element in this new triangle is the Global South, a diverse collection of countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. These nations are not unified by ideology but by a shared desire for greater influence and recognition in global affairs. With growing populations, expanding economies, and increasing innovation, they represent both opportunity and uncertainty. Countries like India and Brazil are asserting themselves more confidently, seeking a larger role in international institutions and decision-making processes. However, challenges such as governance issues, economic dependency, and inequality remain significant. The Global South’s choices - whether to align with existing powers or chart independent paths - will play a crucial role in shaping the future balance of power.
As these three spheres interact, competition has become more complex and widespread, extending beyond traditional military and economic domains into technology, information, and culture. Advances in artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and data control are transforming how power is exercised and contested. Different regions approach these technologies in distinct ways, reflecting their political and social priorities. While competition can drive innovation and growth, it also increases the risk of conflict when not managed by shared rules and mutual trust. Modern conflicts are no longer confined to battlefields; they include cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and economic pressure, blurring the line between war and peace.
In this environment, cooperation becomes both more difficult and more essential. Global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and economic instability cannot be addressed by any single nation. Effective collaboration depends on strong institutions and shared commitments, yet many existing systems are struggling to keep pace with changing realities. Reforming these institutions is necessary to ensure they remain relevant and inclusive. This includes giving greater representation to emerging powers and ensuring that rules are applied fairly. Incremental change, rather than complete overhaul, is presented as the most practical path forward, preserving stability while adapting to new conditions.
Stubb outlines possible futures ranging from continued disorder to systemic collapse or the emergence of a rebalanced order based on cooperation among the three spheres. The outcome will depend largely on how nations manage the tension between competition and collaboration. The Global South, in particular, holds significant influence in determining which path is taken, as its alignment choices will shape the overall balance. The book emphasizes that the future is not predetermined; it will be shaped by decisions made collectively and individually by states.
In conclusion, "The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order" by Alexander Stubb argues that the era of a stable, Western-led global system has come to an end, replaced by a more fragmented and multipolar reality. The interplay between the Global West, Global East, and Global South will define the next phase of international relations. While competition is inevitable, the key challenge lies in preventing it from escalating into conflict by strengthening cooperation and reforming global institutions. By embracing a balance of realism and shared values, and by adapting to the shifting distribution of power, the international community can still shape a more stable and inclusive order.
To understand how this shift occurred, the book traces the evolution of power and order over time. Historically, large empires provided structure and stability, even if they were imperfect and often oppressive. Over time, this idea of order expanded into a global system of sovereign states, formalized through agreements that emphasized legal equality and defined boundaries. This system held relatively firm during the Cold War, when two opposing blocs maintained a tense but structured balance. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the world entered a period of apparent unity under Western leadership. Yet beneath that surface, instability was already growing. The expansion of Western institutions did not always align with local realities, particularly in regions where people felt excluded from decision-making. Russia’s difficult transition after the Cold War, combined with Western interventions and crises such as the Iraq War and the 2008 financial collapse, gradually eroded confidence in the system. By the 2010s and early 2020s, with events like Brexit, the pandemic, and renewed geopolitical conflict, it became clear that the old order had lost its coherence.
One of the clearest illustrations of this breakdown is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which the book presents as a turning point in global alignment. Unlike earlier conflicts, this war did not produce a unified international response. Instead, countries reacted based on their own strategic interests, revealing a world no longer willing to follow a single leader. Russia’s actions were rooted in its historical perspective, one that emphasizes strength, survival, and distrust of external influence. While the invasion strengthened Western alliances and revitalized institutions like NATO, it also exposed the limits of Western influence globally. Many countries, particularly in the Global South, chose neutrality or selective engagement, reflecting a more pragmatic and less ideological approach to international relations. Even within the Global East, responses were varied, with China balancing its strategic interests carefully rather than offering unconditional support.
The Global West, composed of the United States, Europe, and their democratic allies, remains a powerful force, but it is under significant internal strain. Its strength lies in democratic governance, economic depth, and technological innovation, yet these advantages are increasingly challenged by domestic divisions. Rising inequality, political polarization, and the rapid influence of digital media have made it harder for democratic systems to function smoothly. Populist movements have gained traction by tapping into public dissatisfaction, questioning established institutions and policies. While the West continues to promote values such as freedom and rule of law, its credibility depends on its ability to address these internal challenges and deliver tangible improvements in people’s lives. Externally, it must also adapt to a world where its authority is no longer taken for granted and where cooperation requires genuine partnership rather than direction.
At the same time, the Global East is reshaping power dynamics through a different model of governance and strategy. Led primarily by China, and supported by countries like Russia and Iran, this group does not form a unified ideological bloc but shares a resistance to Western dominance. China, in particular, stands out for its long-term planning, state-driven economic model, and global ambitions, exemplified by initiatives that expand its influence across continents. Its approach combines market mechanisms with centralized control, creating a hybrid system that challenges traditional Western models. Russia, by contrast, faces economic and institutional limitations, while Iran operates within regional constraints. Together, these nations contribute to a more multipolar world where power is distributed and alliances are flexible.
Perhaps the most dynamic and deciding element in this new triangle is the Global South, a diverse collection of countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. These nations are not unified by ideology but by a shared desire for greater influence and recognition in global affairs. With growing populations, expanding economies, and increasing innovation, they represent both opportunity and uncertainty. Countries like India and Brazil are asserting themselves more confidently, seeking a larger role in international institutions and decision-making processes. However, challenges such as governance issues, economic dependency, and inequality remain significant. The Global South’s choices - whether to align with existing powers or chart independent paths - will play a crucial role in shaping the future balance of power.
As these three spheres interact, competition has become more complex and widespread, extending beyond traditional military and economic domains into technology, information, and culture. Advances in artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and data control are transforming how power is exercised and contested. Different regions approach these technologies in distinct ways, reflecting their political and social priorities. While competition can drive innovation and growth, it also increases the risk of conflict when not managed by shared rules and mutual trust. Modern conflicts are no longer confined to battlefields; they include cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and economic pressure, blurring the line between war and peace.
In this environment, cooperation becomes both more difficult and more essential. Global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and economic instability cannot be addressed by any single nation. Effective collaboration depends on strong institutions and shared commitments, yet many existing systems are struggling to keep pace with changing realities. Reforming these institutions is necessary to ensure they remain relevant and inclusive. This includes giving greater representation to emerging powers and ensuring that rules are applied fairly. Incremental change, rather than complete overhaul, is presented as the most practical path forward, preserving stability while adapting to new conditions.
Stubb outlines possible futures ranging from continued disorder to systemic collapse or the emergence of a rebalanced order based on cooperation among the three spheres. The outcome will depend largely on how nations manage the tension between competition and collaboration. The Global South, in particular, holds significant influence in determining which path is taken, as its alignment choices will shape the overall balance. The book emphasizes that the future is not predetermined; it will be shaped by decisions made collectively and individually by states.
In conclusion, "The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order" by Alexander Stubb argues that the era of a stable, Western-led global system has come to an end, replaced by a more fragmented and multipolar reality. The interplay between the Global West, Global East, and Global South will define the next phase of international relations. While competition is inevitable, the key challenge lies in preventing it from escalating into conflict by strengthening cooperation and reforming global institutions. By embracing a balance of realism and shared values, and by adapting to the shifting distribution of power, the international community can still shape a more stable and inclusive order.
March 16, 2026
Finlands president skriver godt og interessant om geopolitikk i endring, og presenterer en strategi vestlige land kan jobbe ut fra for å opprettholde en regelstyrt verdensorden framover. Siste del absolutt mest interessant! Brukte mye tid innledningsvis på å sette kontekst, som i stor grad er selvfølgeligheter for oss over snittet interessert i internasjonal politikk.
January 20, 2026
In The Triangle of Power schetst Alexander Stubb de contouren van een nieuwe wereldorde. Meer zeggenschap voor de Global South, versterking van de Verenigde Naties en een hernieuwd multilateraal systeem gebaseerd op regels en waarden. Stubb begon aan het boek in 2020. Inmiddels is hij zichtbaar ingehaald door de geschiedenis. Toch is het boek interessant. Niet als routekaart naar de toekomst, maar als spiegel van westers elite-denken in een laat-systeemfase.
Het boek laat zien hoe diep de westerse bestuurlijke klasse zich heeft vastgezet in een vocabulaire van regels, normen en waarden, zelfs nu de orde die deze taal voortbracht aan het verdwijnen is.
Schets van het wereldtoneel
Stubb stelt zich een ambitieuze taak: het analyseren van de mondiale machtsverhoudingen en het formuleren van een nieuwe wereldorde. Het resultaat is per definitie incompleet, maar wordt in vlotte, toegankelijke stijl gepresenteerd. Hij verdeelt de wereld in drie blokken: het Westen (de liberale orde van na 1945), het Oosten (met China als kern en Rusland, Iran en Noord-Korea in de periferie) en de Global South (voormalig niet-gebonden landen, feitelijk een restcategorie).
Deze blokken worden politiek, economisch, technologisch en geopolitiek getypeerd. Ze staan met elkaar in competitie; Stubb’s inzet is om die competitie niet te laten ontaarden in conflict, maar te kanaliseren richting coöperatie. Als beschrijving is dit adequaat. Als analyse blijft het oppervlakkig: macht wordt geordend naar geografie, maar niet materieel verklaard.
Diplomatic myopia
Stubb is een product van de diplomatie. Opgeleid in de VS, gevormd in Brussel, Londen en Helsinki, en langdurig actief in internationale instituties. Zijn geloof in multilateralisme, internationale organisaties en de rules-based international order is consistent — en begrijpelijk vanuit het perspectief van een klein, open land als Finland.
Juist daarom is een passage uit hoofdstuk 4 onthullend. Over Europese integratie schrijft hij in retrospectief: *“I realize my view on the EU is naïve. I believed the benefits of European integration were obvious to everyone. I was wrong.”* Deze constatering dateert uit 2016. Dat is laat. De ongelijke verdeling van de baten van globalisering en EU-integratie was toen al uitgebreid gedocumenteerd door onder anderen Rodrik, Stiglitz en Autor. Oost-West-convergentieproblemen binnen de EU waren zichtbaar en politiek explosief.
Dit niet zien is geen moreel falen, maar een analytisch falen van een bestuurder die te lang binnen zijn institutionele bubbel opereerde.
Ontbrekende puzzelstukken
Stubb is uitgesproken normatief. Integratie is goed. Legitimiteit volgt uit rationele beleidskeuzes. Zijn centrale concept - values-based realism - volgt niet uit analyse, maar fungeert als reddingsplan. Het is een poging om dezelfde normatieve orde te herstellen die het Westen decennialang universeel heeft willen maken.
Wat ontbreekt is een serieuze analyse van falen. Waarom internationale instituties hun legitimiteit hebben verloren. Hoe regels structureel selectief zijn toegepast, met name door westerse staten. Over kapitalisme schrijft Stubb dat het groei heeft gegenereerd, maar dat politiek heeft gefaald in de verdeling daarvan. Die constatering blijft hangen. Er volgt geen analyse van machtsstructuren, geen institutioneel alternatief, geen politiek-economisch ontwerp voor een “nieuwe wereldorde”.
Populisme wordt benoemd als probleemversterker. De zorgen die populisten adresseren zijn volgens Stubb reëel, hun antwoorden ondeugdelijk. Maar ook Stubb blijft ons de antwoorden op deze vragen schuldig.
Een gefragmenteerde wereldorde
The Triangle of Power is een document van de laat-systeemfase waarin het Westen zich bevindt: de overgang van een monopolaire wereldorde naar een gefragmenteerde wereld. Het boek is analytisch en moreel overtuigd — als ik het mag zeggen: Stubb schrijft een tikkeltje arrogant — en tegelijkertijd circulair.
Stubb schreef geen gids voor een nieuwe wereldorde, maar een pleidooi om de oude orde met betere retoriek te redden.
Het boek laat zien hoe diep de westerse bestuurlijke klasse zich heeft vastgezet in een vocabulaire van regels, normen en waarden, zelfs nu de orde die deze taal voortbracht aan het verdwijnen is.
Schets van het wereldtoneel
Stubb stelt zich een ambitieuze taak: het analyseren van de mondiale machtsverhoudingen en het formuleren van een nieuwe wereldorde. Het resultaat is per definitie incompleet, maar wordt in vlotte, toegankelijke stijl gepresenteerd. Hij verdeelt de wereld in drie blokken: het Westen (de liberale orde van na 1945), het Oosten (met China als kern en Rusland, Iran en Noord-Korea in de periferie) en de Global South (voormalig niet-gebonden landen, feitelijk een restcategorie).
Deze blokken worden politiek, economisch, technologisch en geopolitiek getypeerd. Ze staan met elkaar in competitie; Stubb’s inzet is om die competitie niet te laten ontaarden in conflict, maar te kanaliseren richting coöperatie. Als beschrijving is dit adequaat. Als analyse blijft het oppervlakkig: macht wordt geordend naar geografie, maar niet materieel verklaard.
Diplomatic myopia
Stubb is een product van de diplomatie. Opgeleid in de VS, gevormd in Brussel, Londen en Helsinki, en langdurig actief in internationale instituties. Zijn geloof in multilateralisme, internationale organisaties en de rules-based international order is consistent — en begrijpelijk vanuit het perspectief van een klein, open land als Finland.
Juist daarom is een passage uit hoofdstuk 4 onthullend. Over Europese integratie schrijft hij in retrospectief: *“I realize my view on the EU is naïve. I believed the benefits of European integration were obvious to everyone. I was wrong.”* Deze constatering dateert uit 2016. Dat is laat. De ongelijke verdeling van de baten van globalisering en EU-integratie was toen al uitgebreid gedocumenteerd door onder anderen Rodrik, Stiglitz en Autor. Oost-West-convergentieproblemen binnen de EU waren zichtbaar en politiek explosief.
Dit niet zien is geen moreel falen, maar een analytisch falen van een bestuurder die te lang binnen zijn institutionele bubbel opereerde.
Ontbrekende puzzelstukken
Stubb is uitgesproken normatief. Integratie is goed. Legitimiteit volgt uit rationele beleidskeuzes. Zijn centrale concept - values-based realism - volgt niet uit analyse, maar fungeert als reddingsplan. Het is een poging om dezelfde normatieve orde te herstellen die het Westen decennialang universeel heeft willen maken.
Wat ontbreekt is een serieuze analyse van falen. Waarom internationale instituties hun legitimiteit hebben verloren. Hoe regels structureel selectief zijn toegepast, met name door westerse staten. Over kapitalisme schrijft Stubb dat het groei heeft gegenereerd, maar dat politiek heeft gefaald in de verdeling daarvan. Die constatering blijft hangen. Er volgt geen analyse van machtsstructuren, geen institutioneel alternatief, geen politiek-economisch ontwerp voor een “nieuwe wereldorde”.
Populisme wordt benoemd als probleemversterker. De zorgen die populisten adresseren zijn volgens Stubb reëel, hun antwoorden ondeugdelijk. Maar ook Stubb blijft ons de antwoorden op deze vragen schuldig.
Een gefragmenteerde wereldorde
The Triangle of Power is een document van de laat-systeemfase waarin het Westen zich bevindt: de overgang van een monopolaire wereldorde naar een gefragmenteerde wereld. Het boek is analytisch en moreel overtuigd — als ik het mag zeggen: Stubb schrijft een tikkeltje arrogant — en tegelijkertijd circulair.
Stubb schreef geen gids voor een nieuwe wereldorde, maar een pleidooi om de oude orde met betere retoriek te redden.
April 19, 2026
Ei relativt interessant bok, men den skjemmes i hovedsak av to ting: Stubb ser verden gjennom en ideologisk linse som han tilsynelatende er helt blind for; og han bruker for mye plass på å (snik)skryte av seg selv, sine oppnåelser, og sitt land.
Han er åpenbart en intelligent mann, og har tenkt mye og dypt over disse problemene, men han har så store skylapper på, at han ser ikke sine egne forutinntagelser. Han skriver mye om det å ta det såkalte globale øst og sør på alvor på deres egne premisser, og han er så nære å skjønne greia, men han er tilsynelatende ikke i stand til å begripe at økonomisk vekst og politisk frihet ikke er det viktigste for alle.
Stubb har vært med på mye spennende og møtt mange viktige mennesker, men den nonchalante måten han forteller om dette er lettere irriterende. Det som er langt mer irriterende, er all den finske eksepsjonalismen han sniker ikke i denne boka. Nokia er Europas beste selskap, Finland klarte å stå imot Russland, badstuer er løsninga på alt, Finland klarte seg mot Russland, det demokratiske Finland gjør det mye bedre enn det autokratiske Russland, og visste du at Finland faktisk klarte å frigjøre seg fra Russland? Jeg forstår at målgruppa for boka er mer internasjonalt, men fra et norsk perspektiv blir det litt tåpelig.
Etter all klaginga mi får jeg nå påpeke at poengene han tar opp er interessante og viktige, selv om jeg ikke synes han drar dem langt nok. Vesten bør ta resten av verden mer på alvor, og bør faktisk være villig til å gi dem mer makt over sine egne skjebner, heller enn å tviholde på all makta vi kan. Han nevner at resten av verden anser det som at Vesten har misbrukt reglene vi satte etter krigen, men det er ikke åpenbart for meg at han selv faktisk tror på det, noe som svekker argumentene hans noe.
Men heller enn å fortsette å flisespikke alle de politiske punktene her, får jeg heller konkludere med at boka nok er veldig nyttig lesing for mange. Jeg var nok ikke i målgruppa, men fikk allikevel litt ut av å lese dette. Dersom han kan overbevise noen om verdien av å omforme de internasjonale institusjonene, er det en enorm seier i seg selv. Alexander Stubb har inntatt en uforholdsmessig stor rolle internasjonalt, så det er nyttig å vite litt om hva han faktisk tenker og mener.
Han er åpenbart en intelligent mann, og har tenkt mye og dypt over disse problemene, men han har så store skylapper på, at han ser ikke sine egne forutinntagelser. Han skriver mye om det å ta det såkalte globale øst og sør på alvor på deres egne premisser, og han er så nære å skjønne greia, men han er tilsynelatende ikke i stand til å begripe at økonomisk vekst og politisk frihet ikke er det viktigste for alle.
Stubb har vært med på mye spennende og møtt mange viktige mennesker, men den nonchalante måten han forteller om dette er lettere irriterende. Det som er langt mer irriterende, er all den finske eksepsjonalismen han sniker ikke i denne boka. Nokia er Europas beste selskap, Finland klarte å stå imot Russland, badstuer er løsninga på alt, Finland klarte seg mot Russland, det demokratiske Finland gjør det mye bedre enn det autokratiske Russland, og visste du at Finland faktisk klarte å frigjøre seg fra Russland? Jeg forstår at målgruppa for boka er mer internasjonalt, men fra et norsk perspektiv blir det litt tåpelig.
Etter all klaginga mi får jeg nå påpeke at poengene han tar opp er interessante og viktige, selv om jeg ikke synes han drar dem langt nok. Vesten bør ta resten av verden mer på alvor, og bør faktisk være villig til å gi dem mer makt over sine egne skjebner, heller enn å tviholde på all makta vi kan. Han nevner at resten av verden anser det som at Vesten har misbrukt reglene vi satte etter krigen, men det er ikke åpenbart for meg at han selv faktisk tror på det, noe som svekker argumentene hans noe.
Men heller enn å fortsette å flisespikke alle de politiske punktene her, får jeg heller konkludere med at boka nok er veldig nyttig lesing for mange. Jeg var nok ikke i målgruppa, men fikk allikevel litt ut av å lese dette. Dersom han kan overbevise noen om verdien av å omforme de internasjonale institusjonene, er det en enorm seier i seg selv. Alexander Stubb har inntatt en uforholdsmessig stor rolle internasjonalt, så det er nyttig å vite litt om hva han faktisk tenker og mener.
July 1, 2026
/Audiobook/
I think this was one of my favorite political books I've read in a while. Very clear and concise messages and good background. Not pointing fingers, but analysing the situation and predicting the future.
The world is in a new geopolitical era and global politics are shaped by the triangle of power - Global West (the US, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and other democratic allies), Global East (primarily China, Russia, Iran and North Korea) and Global South (emerging powers such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Gulf states, much of Africa and Latin America). It's not about the West or East "winning", but how the Global South engages.
The liberal world is ending as the institutions that were built after WWII are losing their influence (multiple reasons: China's rise, 2008 crisis, digital disruption etc); there is no one dominant power, but the world is becoming multipolar.
I don't think I've read anyone analysing and talking about the Global South as much and how the future is not just about US-China competition. Demographics, economic growth, and natural resources give these Global South countries growing leverage and they are seeking further influence in global governance.
The West's leadership is not given anymore based on history; it has to be earned. Competition between major powers is natural, but doesn't have to end in conflict and can be solved through diplomacy and functioning international institutions. I really liked how Alexander Stubb talked about the international institutions like UN, WTO, IMF and the need for reform to take the Global South into account there, as otherwise they just lose their legitimacy. Also, global problems like climate change, pandemics, and migration need global cooperation.
So the key point is that the world has changed, it's more multipolar, less predictable, and shaped by decisions by new emerging powers. Leadership needs to take this into account as we move forward.
I think this was one of my favorite political books I've read in a while. Very clear and concise messages and good background. Not pointing fingers, but analysing the situation and predicting the future.
The world is in a new geopolitical era and global politics are shaped by the triangle of power - Global West (the US, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and other democratic allies), Global East (primarily China, Russia, Iran and North Korea) and Global South (emerging powers such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Gulf states, much of Africa and Latin America). It's not about the West or East "winning", but how the Global South engages.
The liberal world is ending as the institutions that were built after WWII are losing their influence (multiple reasons: China's rise, 2008 crisis, digital disruption etc); there is no one dominant power, but the world is becoming multipolar.
I don't think I've read anyone analysing and talking about the Global South as much and how the future is not just about US-China competition. Demographics, economic growth, and natural resources give these Global South countries growing leverage and they are seeking further influence in global governance.
The West's leadership is not given anymore based on history; it has to be earned. Competition between major powers is natural, but doesn't have to end in conflict and can be solved through diplomacy and functioning international institutions. I really liked how Alexander Stubb talked about the international institutions like UN, WTO, IMF and the need for reform to take the Global South into account there, as otherwise they just lose their legitimacy. Also, global problems like climate change, pandemics, and migration need global cooperation.
So the key point is that the world has changed, it's more multipolar, less predictable, and shaped by decisions by new emerging powers. Leadership needs to take this into account as we move forward.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews