Once upon a time, a long time ago, I believed that the natural progression from a hunter-gatherer society to a nation-state would eventually lead to a world government with an international police force.
Events that once seemed unthinkable are now discussed openly: major powers talking about seizing territory, alliances fraying, and the language of international law sounding increasingly hollow.
It feels as if the world we assumed would last forever is quietly dissolving, and the prospect of a world government is a pipe dream.
To understand this shift, we need to look back to 1945.
After the Second World War, the world settled into the Cold War, a bipolar contest between the United States and the Soviet Union.
That system endured until 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.
For the next three decades, the world experienced a global system largely shaped by one dominant power, the United States, supported by its Western allies.
During that period, we became accustomed to hearing about the “rules-based international order.”
International law, institutions, and alliances appeared to provide a stable framework for global affairs.
But the uncomfortable truth is that this order always rested on something fragile: the willingness and ability of the most powerful countries to enforce it.
Unlike laws within a nation, international law has no real police force.
There is no global authority capable of enforcing it against powerful states.
In practice, the system functioned largely because the United States and its allies were strong enough and willing enough to uphold it.
But the West must also accept some responsibility for the erosion of that system.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq severely damaged Western moral credibility.
It is difficult to insist that international law must be respected if powerful nations themselves appear willing to invade countries on contested or shifting justifications.
When the guardians of the system bend the rules, others inevitably feel more willing to do the same.
Now that framework is weakening.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; the growing tension over Taiwan; the kidnapping of President Maduro of Venezuela; the attack on Iran; the bid for Greenland; and conflicts spreading across the Middle East all point to a world in which major powers are increasingly prepared to act according to raw national interest rather than shared rules.
The old world order is over.
Nuclear weapons also loom large in this changing landscape.
Today nine countries possess them.
Their existence has long shaped geopolitics, but their importance becomes even clearer in a less orderly world.
Nuclear-armed states are extremely difficult to challenge directly.
The danger is that other countries may conclude that acquiring nuclear weapons is the only reliable guarantee of security.
If that logic spreads, the world could face a dangerous wave of nuclear proliferation.
Another uncomfortable reality is the growing weakness of Europe in this changing system.
Europe represents roughly 12% of the world’s population but around 60% of global welfare spending, of which I am a major beneficiary.
That statistic tells a story.
For decades, Europeans have lived in remarkable comfort and security, underwritten largely by American military power and a relatively stable global economy.
In that environment, it was easy to forget that geopolitics had not disappeared.
Energy policy offers a telling example.
Germany shut down its nuclear power stations and became heavily dependent on Russian gas.
Britain has allowed its industrial electricity costs to rise to among the highest in the developed world, contributing to the steady decline of domestic manufacturing.
In some areas, we now struggle to produce even basic strategic materials such as steel.
At the same time, European military capability has steadily declined.
Britain now spends more each year servicing its national debt than on defence.
Across much of Europe, armed forces have shrunk while governments expanded welfare spending and public debt.
None of this happened overnight.
It is the result of decades of decisions taken by governments of all political colours.
But the consequence is clear: Europe’s influence in world affairs is diminishing rapidly.
In international politics, strength still matters.
Alliances, like partnerships, depend on both sides bringing something to the table.
If Europe becomes economically weaker, militarily thinner, and strategically uncertain, it inevitably carries less weight.
None of this means decline is inevitable.
Britain and Europe still possess immense strengths: advanced technology, highly educated populations, long democratic traditions, and deep cultural influence.
But maintaining a voice in the world will require a clear-eyed recognition that the global environment is becoming more competitive and more dangerous.
Share