In a world increasingly defined by strategic maneuvering, a significant power struggle is underway to shape a new global order.
President Donald Trump’s aggressive America First agenda, marked by a global tariff war, is acting as a catalyst that exposes the harsh realities of international power relations.
At the forefront of this struggle, the United States and China emerge as the dominant superpowers, dwarfed only by their expansive capabilities while other nations either submit or resist from weaker positions.
Recent months have witnessed the United States flexing its muscles through the imposition of sweeping tariffs across much of the globe.
Additionally, the U.S. has demanded increased military spending from its dependent allies, bombed Iran with a precision that few could match, and seen companies like Nvidia and Microsoft push their market capitalizations beyond the $4 trillion mark.
In response to the Trumpist offensive, China has showcased its own power, implementing restrictions on the exports of vital raw materials that have rattled global markets.
Resilience is evident in China’s upward revision of its growth outlook—from 4% to 4.8%—according to the International Monetary Fund.
The substantial strength of its industrial sector, bolstered by unprecedented subsidies, significantly impacts its global competitors.
Technological advancements, illustrated by the launch of the DeepSeek language model shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, reflect China’s growing capabilities.
Moreover, China has demonstrated indifference to European appeals, including requests to limit support for Russia amid its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
This complex interplay of military, technological, economic, productive, and political power places the United States and China in a position of clear preeminence, while other nations face mounting risks.
Manuel Muñiz, the international rector of IE University and former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Spain, remarks on the evolving nature of international relations.
“We are moving toward a world of much more evident realpolitik than to date, where the use of force will be much more central to international relations than it has been until now,” he notes.
Muñiz points to the demise of an order that, while imperfect, was underpinned by rules, international law, multilateralism, and governance.
He argues that the United States, once the architect of these global structures, no longer desires the constraints they impose.
Conversely, the ascent of countries like China, which either reject the existing rules or aspire to forge their own, has further complicated the situation.
Muñiz envisions a future dominated by a G-2 framework wherein the United States and China engage in profound economic, technological, security, military, normative, and political collisions.
Rafael Dezcallar, former Spanish ambassador to China, echoes this sentiment.
“Those two countries are the only ones with a global vision of what they want.
They are, moreover, contradictory visions and in inevitable conflict,” sums up Dezcallar, an expert on the rise of China.
He outlines the respective strengths of these superpowers.
China’s ability to influence global industrial development through its strategic control of rare earth materials remains potent for the immediate future.
On the other hand, the United States retains its supremacy in technology across several key sectors.
Additionally, U.S. military capabilities continue to be unmatched globally.
The recent technology index compiled by Harvard University’s Belfer Center underscores a strong dominance of both powers in critical fields such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing, and semiconductors.
While the United States maintains an edge, China’s remarkable synergy between technological advancement and manufacturing capacity cannot be overlooked.
Europe, taken as a whole, shows competitive potential, but its collective strength lacks the political impact seen in the actions of the individual superpowers.
In military terms, both the United States and China significantly outpace other nations.
The U.S. holds a considerable lead in nominal military spending; yet, when comparing purchasing power parity, Chinese military expenditure has reached half that of the U.S., according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
China’s shipyards are producing vessels at a rapid rate.
Despite this, doubts persist regarding the effectiveness of China’s military technology due to limited real combat scenarios.
In a recent clash between India and Pakistan, however, the performance of Chinese J-10s demonstrated effectiveness, with advanced PL-15 missiles contributing to successful engagements against Indian air power.
This instance, albeit isolated, raises questions about the efficacy of Western alternatives, especially after the downing of a French-made Raphael fighter.
Yet, the total military expenditure of European nations remains formidable, but lacks genuine operational capacity, heavily reliant on NATO, with the U.S. at its helm.
Conversely, Europe’s combined military budget does not equate to a feasible deterrent force when considered alone.
Examining economic power, the European Union still boasts a GDP comparable to China, and its collaborative capabilities permit some level of international influence; however, this does not translate into meaningful power projection.
Notably, the recent trade dynamics illustrate Europe’s subordinate position to Washington, as exemplified by unfavorable trade agreements.
Further complicating the picture are nations such as Russia, which despite its vast nuclear arsenal and territorial expanse, struggles with a modest economy, reliant on resources, and wrestling with significant internal challenges.
The Kremlin’s military actions in Ukraine could falter without Chinese trade, particularly regarding dual-use goods that Russia cannot produce independently.
India charts a promising growth trajectory, bolstered by significant demographic and economic potential, yet it remains far from the established superpowers in terms of influence and autonomy.
One critical shortcoming is India’s stark reliance on external sources for advanced military technology.
In Latin America, Brazil’s leadership under Lula da Silva reflects aspirations for political resistance on the global stage; however, its economic and military limitations prevent it from emerging as a key player.
The lack of regional integration undermines Latin America’s ability to project collective influence.
Dezcallar envisions an increasingly bipolar world, albeit differing from the Cold War dynamics defined by military and ideological rivalry, as economic competition plays a key role in the current landscape.
He asserts, “Today’s is a different kind of bipolarity, in which there is room for some actors, in some specific sectors, to also play a relevant role.”
The current global reality, while starkly defining U.S. and Chinese supremacy, is subject to potential change.
Muñiz speculates that the medium to long-term future might witness the emergence of a G-4, where India and the EU become vital poles alongside the two current superpowers.
India’s growth trajectory showcases its economic and demographic potential, suggesting that barring unforeseen political upheaval, it is positioned to become a vital player in the global landscape.
Projections indicate the possibility of the U.S., China, and India nearing similar GDPs of around $50 trillion by 2075, with the EU projected to reach $30 trillion—while all other nations lag considerably behind.
In this scenario, Muñiz posits that India will gain significant prominence over the next two decades.
For the EU, the complexity of coordinating the political will of multiple member states presents another dimension of challenge.
Nonetheless, Muñiz remains optimistic about European integration, predicting pressures within the international environment will ultimately necessitate a consolidated European response to safeguard citizens’ interests.
Yet the United States and China are not free from vulnerabilities.
The U.S.’s formidable display of power risks becoming a double-edged sword as tariffs, while attempting to safeguard domestic industries, may inadvertently harm the U.S. economy.
Distrust among allies could weaken the network of alliances that has been fundamental to America’s global influence.
Increasingly evident cultural challenges within the U.S. frequently raise questions about its attractiveness as a destination for the world’s top talents.
This has led to concerns articulated by Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, who believes the U.S. may be losing the competitive race against Beijing, as reported in a recent op-ed.
Concurrently, China also grapples with significant internal challenges.
Its demographic trends project a substantial decline, with estimates suggesting a fall to fewer than 800 million citizens by the century’s end— in stark contrast to India’s burgeoning population.
This demographic crisis is compounded by domestic economic issues, despite an aggressive export-driven manufacturing strategy.
Furthermore, the reliance on export-restrictive measures signals to other nations the urgency to mitigate their dependencies, which could impact China’s global standing.
As the contest over the future world order unfolds, current dynamics highlight the clear supremacy of both the U.S. and China, while leaving room for potential shifts in the medium term.
image source from：english
