Contours of a New World are slowly taking shape

Written for Kosovo Online by Zeljko Sajn

In the year marking the 80th anniversary of the victory over fascism, the world order established at Yalta in 1945—based on spheres of influence and the balance of power during the Cold War—began to collapse with the fall of the Berlin Wall and is now visibly disintegrating before our eyes. The modern world stands on the threshold of a new multipolar order, the development of which depends on the dialogue between the presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation. These two leaders have taken significant steps toward re-establishing diplomatic relations, bringing the world closer to the hope that peace is attainable.

Bilateral relations between these two military and political powers were severed by the military crisis in Ukraine, which divided the world: the NATO alliance, along with the European Union, supported Ukraine and imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation, which was conducting a special military operation on Ukrainian territory—quietly backed militarily by the Global South. At the same time, many citizens of NATO member states disagree with the official policies of their governments and express support for the Russian Federation.

One example is North Macedonia, where the 30th anniversary OSCE conference was held amid the global security crisis and during the military conflict between two brotherly Slavic nations—Russians and Ukrainians. Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, personally witnessed the Macedonian people's support for Russia, despite the fact that the executive government of North Macedonia, due to sanctions against the Russian Federation and its officials—including Lavrov—did not receive him in government offices, following its NATO obligations.

At that conference in Skopje, Lavrov arguably saved the OSCE from political collapse by creating conditions that today allow the Russian and American presidents, along with their diplomatic representatives, to sit at the negotiating table and pursue a path to peace—defining the outlines of a new world order. Unlike Yalta, this time the United Kingdom will not be present at the decision-making table regarding the future of the world.

“Russia and the U.S. have taken the first step toward normalizing relations. That gives us reason for optimism,” emphasized Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in an interview for RIA Novosti, adding that the lack of security is growing and that in such conditions, major powers must fulfill their obligations and act as stabilizing forces in an unpredictable world. According to him, Russia and the U.S. bear a significant share of the responsibility for peace and global stability. Let us recall that Chinese President Xi Jinping gave unconditional trust to Putin in Kazan during the 16th BRICS Summit, urging him to responsibly approach the creation of peace in the process of normalizing relations with the U.S.

As the world’s two leading military powers engage in talks to establish global peace, they are simultaneously laying the foundations of a new multipolar world, based on natural resources. This direction was confirmed at the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, where BRICS members anchored their partnership on resources vital to the planet’s life. Meanwhile, the U.S., EU, and NATO were preparing to dismantle the Russian Federation as a state. However, the new U.S. President Donald Trump adopted a different stance from his predecessor, showing a willingness to negotiate peace and accepting a world order structured around natural resources. For now, this approach does not suit France and its European coalition partners, who are attempting to undermine the negotiations in Riyadh and trigger a war scenario with unforeseeable consequences for the entire planet, including the potential use of nuclear weapons.

Time will tell how the path to peace will be built and what compromises will have to be weighed, but it is certain that China will play a significant role in constructing a Eurasian security architecture. Ukraine will likely undergo territorial restructuring. According to Moscow-based analyst Sergei Stankovic, the Dayton Agreement may serve as a useful model for Ukraine.

“I believe the Dayton Agreement could become the basic model for moving Ukraine from war to peace. By analogy with Dayton, several major powers (the U.S., Russia, China, and others) could establish external crisis management for Ukraine, creating a temporary administration to help overcome post-war shocks—especially the threat of spontaneous violence and civil war—and to form a functional government based on democratic elections,” said Stankovic, stressing that dividing Ukraine into zones of control would be politically inappropriate.

“I don’t think a simple division into zones of control is appropriate. A transitional government of national unity will likely be formed in Kyiv, with representatives of the major powers holding key positions. International forces will be needed to maintain order. It’s important for Ukraine not to repeat the mistakes of the Dayton system—namely, not to maintain foreign control for 30 years. It is essential to prepare and hold elections, combined with a constitutional referendum, within no more than one year,” Stankovic concluded.

If a broader agreement on Ukraine’s political future is reached, it could serve as the foundation for a new security architecture across Eurasia. Such a framework—into which Germany and France would gradually be integrated—would enable stability stretching from Lisbon to Beijing, including the Balkan region.

In this global context, expectations are growing for the conclusion of a new general accord on global peace, founded on the normalization of relations between the Russian Federation and the United States, with Riyadh acting as mediator. The key negotiation points revolve around the future role of NATO and the status of certain territories. While the focus may appear to rest solely on the crisis in Ukraine, increasingly frequent diplomatic engagements among Moscow, Washington, and Riyadh indicate a broader negotiation framework. Within this context, previously rigid NATO positions toward Russia are gradually being softened, including the accusations made by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in a 2019 interview for Politika, in which he blamed Moscow for undermining global security in both Europe and the Middle East.

The dialogue between the U.S. and Russia addresses fundamental questions concerning the future of NATO, geostrategic territories, and the status of natural resources. The U.S. has abandoned its insistence on Ukrainian membership in NATO, while the new German government signals that Kyiv is not ready for EU membership either. The next step involves aligning the technical and legal aspects of exploiting Ukraine’s natural resources and implementing territorial restructuring, which would form the basis for a broader peace agreement between Russia and the United States. With the support of the United Nations, such an agreement could become the cornerstone of a new international security framework and a redefined role for NATO in the future global order.

The contours of a new world are slowly taking shape, but their final form will depend on the willingness of the major powers to renounce hegemonic ambitions and to reach a compromise in the interest of humanity’s stability.