NEW WORLD ORDER AT THE 80TH SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 2025

The world is experiencing one of the most complex geopolitical transformations in recent history at the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in 2025. This transformation is shaped by the existence of historical geopolitical and economic turning points. The unipolar order that lasted only 20 years after the Cold War is no longer in effect. A new multipolar system has emerged. The question is how to navigate the process of accepting this new order. History shows that order changes are always shaped by war and crises; the 1648 Westphalia, 1815 Vienna, 1919 Versailles, and 1945 Yalta processes are examples of this. All of these processes experienced order changes. These processes occurred through the rupture of both geopolitical and economic fault lines. The end of the Thirty Years' War, the end of the Napoleonic era, the pushing of Germany, which sought to reach the sea in World War I, to the continent, and the recurrence of the same fate for both Germany and Japan in World War II, all triggered the establishment of new orders. Each period has created a rematch of the previous one. The same cycles have played out in the economic sphere. The global economic crisis and Germany's emergence as an economic giant led to a quest for war in the 1910s. The Great Depression in the 1930s gave rise to fascist radicalization and expansionist policies. The Bretton Woods cracks in the 1960s fueled geopolitical aggression. The OPEC crisis in 1973 and Nixon's abandonment of the gold standard triggered a chain reaction that led to the growth of neoliberalism and bubble finance, and finally, in the 2020s, global debt crises accelerated nationalist populism and multipolar competition. Today, the global debt-to-national income ratio is at historic highs.These conditions are creating an economic foundation even more fragile than the 1930s. Meanwhile, the war between Ukraine and Russia continues. The greatest human tragedy since the Holocaust is unfolding in Gaza. Israel is committing genocide without reservation. Dozens of women and children are dying every day. The world is watching.

The 80th session of the United Nations opened on September 9, 2025, under such circumstances. On the same day, Israel launched an airstrike on the building in Doha, the capital of Qatar, home to the largest US air base, where Hamas-US ceasefire talks were to be held under US auspices and guarantees. This attack, with US and UK approval and oversight, disrupted all balances in West Asia and the Gulf. Six days after this brutal attack, Israel launched an all-out occupation of Gaza, where it systematically implements a policy of starvation and genocide. It continues to force hundreds of thousands of Palestinians southward, under threat of death, to flee to Egypt.

TALK, NO ACTION

At the opening of the 80th UN General Assembly, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized that human values ​​are "under siege" and that institutional boundaries are weakening in the face of conflict. While the majority of member states called for the preservation of the two-state model in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, every member knows that this goal will not be realized as long as the US veto persists and Israel receives uninterrupted military and political support from the US. Although the General Assembly passed its desired resolution, the Great Powers' obstruction to enacting genuine sanctions, particularly through the Security Council, became even more apparent during the 80th session. Finally, on September 18, at the beginning of the 80th session, the US vetoed the unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. In short, the most important institution shaping the global order is in disarray. The fundamental reason for this disarray is that the state that founded it, as a collapsing hegemon, is opposing the law-based world and imposing its own order with Israel.

SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE UN AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

In fact, there are striking similarities between the current state of the UN and the position of the League of Nations (LEN) before World War II. While the League of Nations adopted resolutions in the 1930s in response to the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, or Germany's expansionist policies, it lacked the military and political power to enforce them. Ultimately, World War II broke out. Despite the strong statements and calls for peace made at the 2025 UN General Assembly regarding the Gaza crisis and other global problems, the non-binding nature of the resolutions and their inability to produce practical results due to Security Council vetoes highlights the same institutional weakness. During the LEN, decisions taken without the support of major powers carried virtually no weight. A similar situation exists within the UN today. The League of Nations, in the face of major crises, was forced to suffice with its role as the "international public conscience." Today, the UN is confined to the same symbolic framework.

GEOPOLITICAL TENSION AND WAR

There is no doubt that the declining hegemon will not relinquish its grip on the global order peacefully and stably. However, Great Britain, after the Pax Britannica, handed over its power to the US without bloodshed and stood by the US as the former colonial leader of the collective West. The situation is different now. This exchange between China and the US will clearly not occur without bloodshed. Israeli geopolitics has also added to this complexity. Israel is one of the greatest obstacles in the global leadership crisis of the US, whose capillaries it has seized. The buildup of tensions between the major powers on a global scale is currently at its peak. The crossing of critical thresholds and the igniting of the triggering spark remain uncertain. Among the primary reasons for this is that nuclear deterrence prevents major powers from directly engaging in war, and that Western-influenced welfare states like the EU and Japan are not yet ready to transition to a war economy and war psychology. Furthermore, the depth of global economic integration, the pressures created by the climate crisis, the development of cyberwarfare capabilities, and the militarization of space are complicating the dynamics of conflict and the potential for major powers to engage in a confrontation similar to past world wars. Therefore, on the eve of every major economic crisis, the hegemony and the finance capital oligarchy that seek the continuation of wars will seek to wear down and internally disintegrate rival major powers through the cheap blood they can find. Another critical problem in this process is the status of nuclear powers outside the major powers. The nuclear capabilities of Israel, Pakistan, India, and possibly Iran increase the risk of regional conflicts escalating into global catastrophes.Israel's aggression, which has not been consciously and deliberately prevented by the US, further exacerbates this risk. Furthermore, in addition to military and geopolitical tensions, the economic vulnerabilities resulting from the neoliberal capitalist model implemented over the last 50 years, which has destroyed nature, humanity, and morality, are paving the way for political radicalization and the rise of nationalist reactions worldwide. In this context, energy security, food and water scarcity, and the desire of major powers to access rare metals are broadening the traditional concept of security, differentiating each state's definition of "vital interests." National security is now shaped not only by military threats but also by economic dependence, the climate crisis, and resource scarcity. This expanded perception of security is pushing states toward more aggressive policies and actions that reduce predictability. This situation is effectively exploited by hegemony and the finance capital oligarchy to initiate new wars.

ACCUMULATION OF TENSIONS

The first of the fundamental reasons for the escalation of tensions in our current era is the reclaiming, after 300 years, of the global economic leadership Asia ceded to the colonial West after the 1700s. Global wealth and power have shifted eastward. The second is the loss of control of the Arctic Ocean and the Western Pacific by the Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-American world, which had been the unconditional rulers of the world's oceans for the past 220 years. This has undermined the 220-year-old strategy of "keep Asia and Europe fragmented, dominate the oceans/seas, and surround rivals" that both the UK and the US had cherished. The reforms launched by China in the 1990s, its massive infrastructure investments, and the Belt and Road Initiative have allowed trade to flow through Asia-centric channels and reduced China's dependence on the Strait of Malacca in the event of war. China, with its manufacturing power, India's rise, and the BRICS surpassing the G7, are shifting global balances. Today, China's national income (PPP) stands at $40 trillion, India's at $20 trillion, and the US at $29 trillion. In contrast, the US has spent trillions on decades of exhausting wars, found itself trapped in a $37 trillion debt trap, and lost its technological superiority. Today, the US military is no longer capable of waging war on two fronts. The oceans and seas are no longer safe for the American navy, as they were in the Red Sea and the Bab El Mandeb Strait. Global defense technologies and asymmetric capabilities have become accessible even to medium- and even small-sized states.The erosion of military power has made the gap between Washington's appetite for global hegemony and its declining economy even more apparent. The US is punishing even its allies with tariffs to reduce its massive budget deficit and debt. Sanctions imposed on Russia in 2022 have eroded the dollar's credibility, and many countries have made de-dollarization an urgent strategy. Consequently, countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America—the global south—are lining up to join the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. While the dollar's dominance is already eroding, trade in yuan, rupees, and other currencies is increasing. On the global financial stage, de-dollarization, accelerated by China's gold-backed yuan system, is eroding the strength of the US dollar and financially isolating US allies, especially Israel. On the other hand, it is a fact that the collective colonialist identity of the US-led West will not resolve the escalating tensions peacefully and will not accept Asian powers on equal terms within the multipolar world order. Therefore, we can say that the finance capital oligarchy, which perpetually seeks war, will use every means to bring the US and EU, along with China and its largest partner, Russia, to heel through military measures.

ESCALATION AND TENSION

The most striking feature of today's tensions is the simultaneous escalation and interconnectedness of crises across different regions. The Asia-Pacific region stands as the arena where the final outcome of the 21st-century power struggle will be played out. The strengthening of the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, along with India's policy of balance, has made this region the center of global competition. China's increasing pressure on Taiwan could cross a critical threshold in conflict with China in this region. Chinese strategists' description of the coming years as a "golden window of opportunity" stems from the convergence of the US's domestic political problems and China's military strengthening. The best-case scenario for China is Israel and Iran clashing over missiles, while the Russia-Ukraine conflict becomes a diversification of the Russia-Moldova conflict.While the US, with its current military power, is preoccupied with the Eastern Mediterranean, the Gulf, and Eastern Europe, allocating power to Taiwan or the South China Sea will be very difficult. Therefore, in an intervention in Taiwan, the US is likely to use its proxies, primarily the Philippines, Japan, Australia, and South Korea, rather than engage in direct conflict with China. Meanwhile, due to public pressure, it is difficult to argue that countries other than the Philippines, due to their welfare state status, will act on the Ukrainian model and unconditionally become American proxies.When this tension erupts, North Korea's support for China, just as it did for Russia in the Ukraine War, has the potential to disrupt all balances. The most important geopolitical goals for hegemony in this process are to prevent Asian unity, to bleed Russia and China, and to create bottlenecks for China's Belt and Road Initiative. In this context, the India-Pakistan rivalry and the Kashmir issue are potentially divisive areas. Because the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is located in this region, India's opposition and the risk of terrorism in the region are serious sources of trouble.The security vacuum and radical organizations surrounding Afghanistan in Central Asia also threaten the continuity of land corridors. Movements similar to the Orange Revolution in Nepal also pose risks to the Asian Union.

The situation in West Asia is further complicated by the Israeli factor. As the likelihood of an escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict in the Middle East increases, the risk of weakening US support is forcing Netanyahu to launch a preemptive strike. Potential attacks on Iran, maritime security challenges in the Gulf, the risk of the Strait of Hormuz being closed, and the regional spillover of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict present opportunities for critical thresholds to be crossed and proxy wars to escalate. In this context, the Israeli attack on Qatar and the events in Syria pose a risk of a chain reaction within the Türkiye-Israel-NATO triangle. Israel has now joined the polarization between Türkiye, Greece, and Southern Cyprus. With the US and the EU backing the trio, seismic/drilling and exercise tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean will likely escalate.

The US's paramount interests in this region are not as significant as those in the Pacific, Arctic, and Russia. However, Israel's interests within the US are substantial in this region. Therefore, the Middle East-Eastern Mediterranean complex presents a multi-actor, multi-layered crisis matrix. Egypt's significant policy shift after Camp David, the rapprochement between Egypt and Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia's pursuit of defense and nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, as a result of Israel's escalating aggression, have fundamentally altered the regional geopolitical balance. Power rivalries in the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea, as well as around Djibouti and Somalia, also perpetuate the region's fragility. The Yemeni Houthis' armed struggle against the Israeli genocide has disrupted maritime transportation routes and brought Israeli maritime trade in the Red Sea to a standstill.

On the European front, the Baltic-Black Sea region has become the most acute area of ​​NATO-Russia tension. NATO's unending eastward expansion strategy after 1999, coupled with the US and EU's attempts to fragment Russia, ultimately led to the 2022 Ukraine-Russia war. Having been defeated in Ukraine and consuming cheap Ukrainian blood, NATO is now attempting to replicate the situation in Moldova and Lithuania through provocations over Kaliningrad. Russia's response, including the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons with the Oreshnik missile to Belarus, its conduct of large-scale military exercises like ZAPAD in the Baltic Sea, and Poland's demand for nuclear weapons, further escalate tensions. The critical threshold in this region could undoubtedly be crossed by the downing of a Russian aircraft in a reverse-flag operation in Poland, Romania, or Lithuania.

This is because both Trump, Van Der Leyen, and the NATO Secretary General have given the green light to European states for this move. However, even if such a situation were to occur, it is doubtful that the 32-member NATO would be able to invoke Article 5 by consensus. Therefore, in all these scenarios, Moldova could still facilitate a shift to a war economy and psychology, replicating the Ukraine war model: a proxy state war with a major power, Russia. Meanwhile, the mobilizations and uprisings in Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina demonstrate the hegemony's continued capabilities for provocation and false flag operations in these regions.

Climate change, resource scarcity, and demographic pressures could be added to all the traditional geopolitical tensions mentioned above. During this period, South and Central America, particularly Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, as well as sub-Saharan Africa, could emerge as new conflict zones. The 2026-2030 period will be critical for all these tensions to transition to actual conflict. This is because both the hegemony, the global south, and the resistance axis have learned from the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Iran conflict, and Israel's brutal attacks. A final reckoning will require at least two to three years.

THE EUROPEAN UNION FRONT

The European Union is currently facing a serious, if temporary, structural crisis. NATO and the EU are paper tigers due to their military capacity deficiencies and economic fragility. The US's ceding responsibility, particularly in the Ukraine war with Russia, and its transformation into a mere arms dealer, is accelerating the institutional disintegration within NATO. While US strategic leadership is weakened by reflexes driven by lobbying and donor interests, the search for new fronts (e.g., Venezuela) creates even greater potential for quagmires. In contrast, Russia has already reached a deterrent level by strengthening its military-industrial capacity on a 24-hour basis. Broadly speaking, the EU was founded on the three pillars of the post-Cold War era.They were dependent on the US for security, Russia for energy, and China for production. However, this trio was dismantled by US intervention. The EU is in a period of geopolitical paralysis. Thanks to its 27-state decision-making mechanism, its ability to make rapid decisions and flexibility has diminished to almost nothing. While Russia, China, or the US can rapidly change policy, the EU is attempting to conceal its weakness with symbolic, aimless, and fruitless moves. While the NATO and EU security architecture is eroding, the US is incapable of providing a defense guarantee. The EU's military capacity with the UK is inadequate, and its rhetoric of strategic autonomy remains a work in progress. In the three-year war, they are unable to stop Russia's successive land advances. Therefore, a major threat is needed to transform the EU from a welfare society to a security society and to prepare the population for war. This threat has been chosen as Russia. If the Russian threat disappears, Europe cannot establish its own independent military structure. Europe cannot confront the Russian threat alone. Over the last 80 years, Europe has been accustomed to geopolitical inertia by the US. Only shock therapy can now expect the EU to become self-sufficient in defense. Therefore, accepting defeat in Ukraine and negotiating with Russia would mean the global downgrade of Europe, which has a colonial tradition spanning the last 300 years. The problem stems from this refusal to acknowledge this. The European Union has been severely defeated by the US and China, and the EU has chosen Russia as the scapegoat. In this context, Germany's energy and deindustrialization crises, the EU's driving force, are negatively impacting the EU's future. The EU will either choose a model of peaceful coexistence with Russia, focused on borders, away from conflict, or re-armament and a major war. A return to the old order is now impossible.

THE US FRONT

The US Front: The US is aware that it cannot fight a war on two fronts. If the Baltic-Black Sea and Taiwan fronts are simultaneously activated, the US, focused on Israel, will be defeated on both. However, the US's most significant problem today is its division and fragmented structure on the domestic front. Three distinct groups are in conflict and competition in the US. The first group, the liberal-globalists (the Soros network, the Democratic Party, and EU-aligned elites), represents the global financial oligarchy. The second group, aligned with the Republicans, consists of the Zionist and Neoconservative lobby (AIPAC, Netanyahu supporters, pro-Israel right-wing and evangelical Christian politicians), representing Israel in the US. This group formulates policies based on Israel's security and the US's military and expansionist role. This structure is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.The third group is the nationalist group known as MAGA. Trump is the leader of this group. While the Republican Party fully represents this group, there are also Zionists among them who are also aligned with Israeli politics. Thus, while it is difficult to clearly distinguish between them, liberal-globalists embrace globalist values, the Zionist bloc, including neoconservatives, embraces Israel-centered geopolitics, and "MAGA" opposes both, creating a threefold and sharply fragmented US domestic politics. Within the US, the symbiotic relationship between the military-industrial complex and finance capital necessitates perpetual war. Whether the US or its allies win is irrelevant. As long as the warring parties, including the US government, borrow money, acquire weapons and ammunition, and the wheel spins forever. The assassination of opinion leader Charlie Kirk in the US has actually unleashed the hatred and rivalry between these groups. The US, having declined in every field, cannot risk a direct war with major powers without fully restoring its internal balance.

WHAT SHOULD TÜRKİYE DO?

We are in a period where the US is shifting its strategic priorities to the Asia-Pacific, and the Atlantic Empire is now attempting to maintain its global dominance through proxy wars and a cheap blood strategy through NATO, Israel, and the AUCUS. The weakening of the NATO umbrella due to the US's withdrawal from Europe creates security gaps for Europeans. The same gaps do not exist for Türkiye. Türkiye's security threats stem from the US, the EU, Israel, the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, and Greece. The collective position of the West, NATO, and Türkiye creates opportunities for Ankara to pursue independent deterrence, multilateral diplomacy, and gold/yuan-based trade—in other words, strategic autonomy.This picture, on the other hand, clearly demonstrates that the new 21st-century war of sharing is being waged from the sea. Therefore, Türkiye's center of gravity is always the Blue Homeland. With 90 percent of world trade flowing through the seas, the fact that whoever controls the seas shapes the global order is reaffirmed. It is precisely at this juncture that Türkiye stands out with its unique geography and geopolitical leverage. The Straits regime, energy transmission lines extending from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, corridors such as TANAP and TurkStream, MİLGEM, UAV-UCAV initiatives, defense industrial autonomy supported by the National Combat Aircraft vision, and the Blue Homeland doctrine are the most important strategic instruments strengthening Türkiye's position on the Atlantic and Eurasian chessboard. It should not be forgotten that the independence of a peninsula state lacking naval power is constantly questioned. Conversely, a Türkiye that loses its bearings between Eurasia and the Atlantic mortgages its future. With controlled Eurasian integration, Ankara can become not only a regional but also a founding global actor. Despite this, threats are growing. Israel's increasing aggression, coupled with the ambiguity surrounding NATO's implementation of Article 5, is opening the door to unforeseen crises for Türkiye. The trilateral defense axis of Israel, Greece, and the Greek Cypriot Administration in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the deployment of air defense systems like the Barak MX in Cyprus, increase the risk of actual contact. Every development in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean today demonstrates that the Blue Homeland is not merely a doctrine but the very essence of our survival on the seas. Establishing a sustainable balance between NATO's evolving structure and its engagement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS is becoming increasingly difficult. At this point, Türkiye faces three paths. If full dependence on the Atlantic and NATO is chosen, as has been the case for the last 80 years, the primary outcomes will be alignment with the US in Syria, easing tensions with Israel, and flexing the Blue Homeland in favor of Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean. The benefits of this include short-term financial relief and reduced pressure on the government regarding legal proceedings. However, the price is high. Accepting the Seville map, making concessions to the PYD/YPG, and approaching a federal solution in the TRNC are the primary costs.

Balanced multilateralism is another option as a second option. While maintaining NATO membership, gradual engagement with the SCO and BRICS, scaling the Türkiye-Pakistan-Azerbaijan-Qatar axis, and acting through issue-based partnerships form the basis of this model. This provides Ankara with extensive maneuverability, achieves energy and economic diversification, and consolidates its regional leadership. However, it also carries risks. First and foremost, there is the issue of trust. It may become unclear whose support can be relied upon at critical moments.

The third option involves a full orientation toward the Eurasian axis, a gradual separation from NATO, full SCO membership, full integration into the BRICS+ financial system, a transition to a yuan and ruble payment infrastructure, and a break from Western supply dependency. The benefits are substantial: strategic autonomy, guaranteed energy access, and a founding partnership in Eurasia. However, this path also carries a significant cost in the short to medium term. It will experience financial shocks, technological transition costs, and the burden of legal and institutional restructuring.

The main problem Türkiye must address is the relative position of the short- and medium-term political interests of the government and the opposition vis-a-vis our fundamentally supra-political geopolitical interests. Today, the Atlantic front, represented by all political interest groups in the US and the Israel/EU/NATO alliance, opposes Türkiye's geopolitical integrity and interests. The situation is both clear and dire. After 1945, Türkiye became a state dependent on the US and the collective West, and, except for the 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation, it has always maintained its geopolitical interests with a passive stance. It has often followed a zig-zag pattern.

We are now approaching the end of this period, the moment of decision. Türkiye's greatest obstacle will be its Blue Homeland and Cyprus front, namely, the sea. Puppet Kurdistan, which has access to the sea, ultimately indirectly affects our maritime interests. It is time to shift from zig-zag routes to a straight one. Türkiye's national memory, stretching from the War of Independence to Montreux, from the 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation to the Kardak Crisis, clearly demonstrates that geopolitical independence is impossible without maritime sovereignty. In light of this reality, the most appropriate strategy lies in collectively resisting the West. Without resistance, there will inevitably be losses and concessions. Our Eurasian orientation will provide Türkiye with the opportunity to both reduce its energy and financial vulnerabilities and, by protecting the Blue Homeland, become an independent pole in the global balance of power.

Fundamental lessons for Türkiye are to avoid blind devotion to the West, to avoid regional wars provoked by false provocations, and to build independent deterrence by strengthening economic and financial diversification. As the old order rapidly collapses, Türkiye's future lies in developing its own strategic mindset to avoid being subjected to the plans of others. Otherwise, being swept up in the vortex of war and collapse is inevitable.