The TRT World Research Centre is proud to present its latest report, developed in conjunction with the 2025 TRT World Forum, held on 31 October – 1 November in Istanbul.
This year’s Forum brought together global leaders, policymakers, academics, and experts for vital discussions on today’s shifting international order. Under the theme “The Global Reset: From the Old Order to New Realities,” participants examined how changes in economics, technology, media, and governance are transforming the world.
The report engages with the intellectual core of the Forum, offering in-depth analysis on key topics — including the realignment of global alliances, evolving economic power structures, regional diplomacy, and the impact of emerging technologies. It also explores strategies for achieving justice in conflict-affected regions.
Through this publication, we aim to enhance understanding of the complex challenges and opportunities reshaping the global landscape.
Strategic Argument and Areas of Debate
The global transition toward multipolarity presents a profound geopolitical paradox wherein the diffusion of international power empowers constructive middle powers to forge new cooperative frameworks, whilst simultaneously provoking major powers to increasingly rely upon transactional unilateralism and the weaponisation of economic statecraft.
Executive Summary
The erosion of the post-Cold War liberal international order has accelerated a structural transition toward a fragmented, multipolar system defined by intense great-power competition and the normalisation of transactional foreign policy under doctrines such as Trumpism. In response to the institutional paralysis of the United Nations Security Council and the coercive economic strategies deployed by the United States and China, emerging middle powers including Türkiye, Brazil, and South Africa are increasingly acting as systemic stabilisers through norm entrepreneurship and mediation. Initiatives spanning from the Black Sea Grain Initiative and the Middle Corridor to alternative governance platforms like BRICS illustrate a concerted effort by regional actors to construct a more equitable, inclusive, and resilient multilateral architecture.
Analytical Framework and Key Drivers
Resurgence of Transactional Unilateralism: The United States has increasingly abandoned multilateral consensus in favour of transactional doctrines, wielding tools like the CHIPS Act and punitive tariffs to secure strategic advantages against international rivals.
Ascendance of Middle Powers: Emerging nations such as Türkiye, Indonesia, and South Africa leverage diplomatic agility to mediate conflicts and challenge the United Nations Security Council structure through campaigns advocating for representative global governance.
Weaponisation of Economic Interdependence: Global trade networks are fracturing as actors deploy sanctions, export controls, and massive infrastructure frameworks like the Belt and Road Initiative and the Global Gateway to establish competing geopolitical blocs.
Technological Sovereignty and Defence: States are aggressively pursuing indigenous technological advancement—exemplified by the National Technology Initiative and platforms like the Bayraktar TB3—to reduce external dependencies and redefine regional security architectures.
Erosion of International Law: The failure of institutions to enforce mechanisms such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2417 during the ongoing crises in Gaza and Ukraine reveals profound accountability gaps that fundamentally undermine the post-1945 liberal order.
Strategic Assessment & Empirical Findings
- By March 2024, Türkiye ascended to become the 11th largest arms exporter globally, distributing advanced defence products to over 180 countries and generating an unprecedented 7.1 billion USD in revenue.
- Under the 2024 China Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Investment Report, Chinese financial commitments in Central Asia surged by 40%, cementing China as the destination for over 70% of Turkmenistan’s total natural gas exports.
- The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza escalated until 100% of the population reached Emergency (IPC Phase 4) food insecurity by late 2024, leaving 133,000 individuals facing devastating Catastrophe/Famine (IPC Phase 5) conditions.
- The implementation of protectionist U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports fundamentally disrupted global supply chains, contributing to a 3% decline in global merchandise trade volume compared to baseline policy projections.
- The European Union committed a vital 12 billion EUR investment package for Central Asia during the April 2025 Samarkand Summit to secure critical mineral supplies and diminish regional reliance on Russian energy infrastructure.
- Labour migration and remittances constitute a critical socio-economic lifeline in Central Asia, accounting for 31% of Kyrgyzstan’s GDP, while over 40% of Tajik households relied heavily on these financial inflows in 2023.
Geopolitical Trajectories & Policy Risks
- The institutionalisation of transactional diplomacy by the United States threatens to fracture established transatlantic alliances, pushing the European Union to urgently pursue strategic autonomy. This recalibration leaves European security architecture highly vulnerable to Russian military coercion if traditional NATO commitments are significantly diminished.
- The deliberate weaponisation of humanitarian aid and the circumvention of the United Nations via mechanisms like the Gaza Development Foundation establish a perilous global precedent of impunity. This normalisation of starvation tactics severely undermines the deterrence value of international humanitarian law, leaving civilian populations permanently exposed to state-sponsored deprivation.
- Central Asian nations confront severe debt dependency vulnerabilities as they navigate competing infrastructure investments from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the European Union’s Global Gateway. An overreliance on external financing risks compromising digital sovereignty and territorial integrity, forcing states like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan into asymmetrical geopolitical compromises.
Critical Policy Questions & Responses
Question 1 How does the emergence of autonomous middle powers challenge the structural legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council?
Answer: Middle powers such as Türkiye and Brazil are actively highlighting that the post-World War II configuration of the United Nations Security Council fails to reflect contemporary geopolitical and demographic realities. By continuously advocating for the elimination of unilateral veto powers and demanding permanent representation for the Global South, these nations are delegitimising unipolar frameworks and proposing democratic alternatives for global governance.
Question 2 What are the long-term implications of the United States’ transactional approach to bilateral alliances under the Trump doctrine?
Answer: The pivot towards a highly transactional foreign policy transforms traditional mutual defence guarantees into conditional exchanges predicated on immediate economic concessions, perfectly illustrated by the 2025 U.S.-Ukraine mineral pact. This fundamentally erodes institutional trust among long-standing allies within NATO, prompting European partners to hedge their security dependencies whilst encouraging adversaries to exploit the resulting alliance fragmentation.
Question 3 What strategic trade-offs does the Belt and Road Initiative create for Central Asian economies?
Answer: The aggressive expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative frequently operates upon a debt-for-infrastructure model that heavily burdens low-income nations, with countries like Kyrgyzstan holding external debt to China equivalent to 36.7% of its GDP. While delivering immediate logistical improvements, this systemic financial dependency compromises strategic autonomy, enabling Beijing to extract concessions involving border territory, energy monopolies, and the widespread installation of Chinese digital surveillance architectures.
Question 4 Why does the integration of indigenous artificial intelligence within the Turkish defence sector matter for NATO and regional security architectures?
Answer: By domesticating the production of critical military technologies—ranging from the Bayraktar TB3 unmanned aerial vehicles to the HAVELSAN MAIN platform—Türkiye has significantly insulated itself against Western arms embargoes and supply chain disruptions. This technological sovereignty dramatically enhances Ankara’s diplomatic leverage, allowing it to pursue independent regional security strategies while simultaneously providing NATO with highly interoperable, combat-proven defence alternatives.
Key Actors and Systemic Dynamics
- [United States] → [Weakens] → [Liberal international order]
- [Türkiye] → [Coordinates with] → [Russia]
- [China] → [Shapes] → [Central Asian economies]
- [European Union] → [Depends on] → [Central Asian critical minerals]
- [United Nations Security Council] → [Constrains] → [Global humanitarian intervention]
- [Russia] → [Undermines] → [Ukrainian territorial integrity]
- [Emerging middle powers] → [Challenge] → [Unipolar hegemony]
- [National Technology Initiative] → [Strengthens] → [Turkish technological sovereignty]
- [Trumpism] → [Accelerates] → [Transatlantic alliance fragmentation]
- [Gaza Development Foundation] → [Enables] → [Humanitarian aid militarisation]
