Afrasianet - Dr. Hisham Okal - The international order is no longer governed by final statements or founding charters, but by short, clear threatening letters. While world leaders were exchanging smiles in Davos, Washington was waving sanctions and tariffs as a management tool, not as a last resort. The most recent example was Donald Trump's threat to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canada if it struck trade deals with China. So the rhetoric went from a partnership between allies to a warning among potential customers. And in this climate Russia does not need to raise its voice. Listening is enough.
Since Trump's return, NATO is no longer an umbrella of deterrence so much as it has become a renegotiateable contract. The central question is no longer who threatens us, but who pays. This rhetorical shift seems simple, but in crisis management it is an early warning signal. An alliance that discusses its feasibility openly sows doubt within it before it faces adversaries outside it. Russia understands this very well. Deterrence is eroded not only by tanks, but by changing the language that describes it. When the idea of collective commitment is replaced by the idea of a deferred bill, it becomes Each member of the alliance is concerned with his own account, not with common security. This is where the most serious gaps come in. Psychological and political gaps open the door to hybrid pressure, media confusion, and the dismantling of national narratives from within.
The Arctic when geography becomes a commodity.
In Davos, the Arctic seemed more like an investment wing than a security file. New shipping routes, energy resources and investment opportunities. Behind this calm was a silent strategic race. Trump's interest in Greenland brought the region back into the spotlight not as a cold land but as an acquiring asset. Russia, which was ahead of everyone else in building a military presence and infrastructure in the north, is not so much bothered by the American noise as it is by its results. Every American hesitation and every European confusion gives Moscow time and space. In crisis management This is a multidimensional threat model. environmental, economic, and military at the same time. The danger is not open war but miscalculation. Anyone who reads maps as sales contracts may discover belatedly that geography is not managed by the logic of promotions.
Ukraine is a freezing threat.
In the U.S. Defense Strategy for 2026, Russia has been described as an ongoing but manageable threat, not a technical sentence. It's a declaration of priorities. China first, Europe later. Ukraine becomes an arena of administration, not an arena of resolution. For Moscow, this scenario is comfortable. The frozen conflict allows for repositioning, building strength, and waiting for a moment of better negotiation. Europe is pushing for increased defense spending not as an independent sovereign option, but as a response to a late bill. In crisis management, fragile stability is more dangerous than outright chaos. The silence of the guns does not mean an end The war is even rescheduling.
A sharp angle asks.
In Davos, there is talk of a new world order, but without a road map. Hence the idea of an alternative peace council to the United Nations. Less bureaucratic, more flexible, and closer to the interests of financiers. The question that is not asked out loud is whether we are looking for peace or elegant conflict management. Gaza is a blatant example. Councils, committees and reconstruction funds without clarity in the goal. Are we facing a real rescue project or a political economic bazaar run in the name of humanity? In crisis management this is not Reconstruction is a reconstruction of the crisis. Change in names and stay in essence.
Conclusion.
Russia is not betting on an immediate collapse and does not seek total chaos. What it wants is simpler and deeper. An international order that is less certain, alliances that can be blackmailed, partners that are more preoccupied with calculations than maps. In a world governed by threat, power is in the ability to wait. As the international community debates what the table is like in Davos, the chairs are quietly pulled back.
– Professor of Crisis Management and Relations
