The World Order Is Quietly Turning: From Caracas to the Arctic, a New Map Emerges
by Jaffa Levy
·
Published
· Updated
The most revealing story of the month did not unfold in the Taiwan Strait or the Black Sea. It played out in the Caribbean, where the United States has surged warships and carried out lethal strikes on small vessels it says were narcotics traffickers departing Venezuela. One strike was announced by the White House as killing eleven people; a second, three more. Evidence has not been shown publicly, and casualty figures are contested. What is not contested is the message: Washington is moving hard power back into its own hemisphere — and doing so under a newly rebranded “Department of War.”
The optics are unmistakable. For two decades America’s flagship deployments and strategic bandwidth were consumed by the Greater Middle East and, more recently, the Western Pacific. Now the United States is rediscovering the logic of the Monroe Doctrine. The White House order of September 5, restoring “Department of War” as a formal title and mirrored days later inside the National Security Council, is not simply a communications tweak. It codifies an offensive posture and an inward turn: protect the near abroad, project less promiscuously.
This is not a sudden pivot. The ground has been shifting for a decade, and the center of gravity is not only south — toward Latin America — but also north, into the Arctic. To see why, it helps to drop the Cold War lens and look through a different prism: one that foregrounds trade corridors, diversification away from chokepoints, and the rise of non-Western institutions capable of financing and legitimizing alternative rules.
South: A Hemisphere That No Longer Belongs to Washington
In Latin America and the Caribbean, more than twenty countries have signed Belt and Road cooperation documents with China. That includes new entrants this year, even as a few have backed away under U.S. pressure. Brazil and Mexico, though not formal signatories, are economically entangled with Beijing; regional trade with China surpassed $500 billion last year. Washington’s own Southern Command warns that Chinese-built infrastructure — from data backbones to megaports — is dual-use by design. None of this happened overnight. It is the cumulative effect of twenty years of finance, construction, and commodity trade that makes Chinese and Russian presence in South America a structural fact, not a flirtation.
That structural reality explains the tone — and the risks — of the new U.S. operations off Venezuela. Caracas is not just an adversarial capital with vast oil reserves. It sits inside a web of relationships: Chinese loans and projects; Russian technicians and security cooperation; reported Iranian drone support; and, more recently, talk of Chinese fighter sales. A U.S. use of force in that context reverberates well beyond the Caribbean. Allies see counter-narcotics; much of the Global South sees coercion. The legal questions — outside an armed conflict, with limited transparency — only sharpen that perception gap.
North: The Arctic Becomes a Trade Idea, Not Just a Map
If the southern story is about presence, the northern story is about routes. At Russia’s Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok on September 5, Vladimir Putin urged “reliable and safe” year-round operation of a Trans-Arctic (Northern Sea) Corridor — and he tied it to monetizing Siberia’s resources. On paper the appeal is obvious: the Northern Sea Route is the shortest sea lane between Asia and Europe, skirting the Bering Strait and Russia’s Arctic coast. In practice, the transition is uneven. Russia posted a record 37.8–37.9 million tons of NSR cargo in 2024, led by energy shipments; but that is a rounding error against Suez’s volumes. Major container lines remain wary of ice, insurance and sanctions risk, and the absence of hubs. The direction of travel is clear; the slope is shallow.
Yet direction matters. Corridor diversification doesn’t have to replace Suez to change the calculus in Asia. The more LNG and bulk that can go polar, the less every disruption in the Red Sea or the Strait of Malacca menaces Chinese supply chains. For Beijing, the Arctic is not romance; it’s risk management. For Washington, it’s a headache for NORAD: a reminder that hypersonic and fractional-orbital systems — China’s 2021 test shocked U.S. officials — can come from vectors the existing northern radar architecture was not designed to watch, while sea lines creep closer to North America’s littoral. Canada’s multibillion-dollar modernization program — over-the-horizon radars, space-based sensors — is the quiet corollary to the “Department of War” branding exercise.
East: Pageantry With a Program
On September 3, Beijing staged its largest Victory Day parade since 2015. The choreography was familiar; the subtext was not. The PLA’s centennial benchmark is 2027 — a waypoint on the path to a “world-class military” by mid-century — and the display was calibrated to suggest real progress toward fighting and winning a regional war under modern conditions. Western assessments differ on how close that goal actually is, but the signaling landed: U.S.–China defense contacts resumed after a chilly pause, and allies took note. Parade theatrics do not decide wars; they do shape risk pricing and diplomacy.
Institutions: Not a Bloc, But a Budget
The institutional story is just as important as the military one. At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin on September 1, China introduced what it called a “Global Governance Initiative,” and the SCO approved a 10-year development strategy to 2035. Beijing floated an SCO-linked development bank and pledged fresh credit lines; BRICS of course already has the New Development Bank. The details are uneven, the politics fractious — but a financing architecture exists outside Bretton Woods and is being iterated. It is not a rules-based order in the classic Western sense; it is a pragmatic one that funds ports, power, and pipes while promising “multipolarity.” This is the world into which the U.S. is now pushing its Caribbean deployments.
Europe: The Theater That Won’t Sit Still
Against this backdrop, Washington insists it still wants a negotiated end to Russia’s war in Ukraine. After an inconclusive Alaska meeting with Vladimir Putin in August, the president told Fox News this week the United States will help “secure peace after the war” — an admission that quick timelines have slipped. Vice President J. D. Vance has been more explicit: outside the war context, he sees no reason to economically isolate Russia and entertains post-war business. That is less a concession to Moscow than an expression of triage: if the Western Hemisphere is the priority theater and new-age rearmament the procurement priority, then Europe cannot be the same budget sink. The optics unsettle allies — particularly when paired with talk of reductions to European readiness programs — but they are consistent with the doctrine implicit in a War Department revival.
India’s Bet, Reconsidered
For more than a decade Washington cast New Delhi as the “net security provider” in the Indian Ocean, a counterweight to China’s Malacca vulnerability and a guard over the Suez–Asia lifeline. But if, by the 2030s, Russia and China succeed in regularizing Arctic shipping, the bulk of Eurasian trade will bypass India’s shores altogether. The Indian Ocean, once central, becomes peripheral. For the United States this means India’s strategic value as a maritime counterweight diminishes; for India it means doubling down on multi-alignment — from Chabahar and the INSTC to the Quad — while acknowledging that neither Washington nor Beijing will give it decisive leverage over the new trade corridors.
Complicating this picture is the Saudi–Pakistan deal signed in Riyadh on September 17, 2025, which commits each state to treat aggression against the other as an attack on both. While not aimed directly at India, it underscores how alignments in the Gulf can harden quickly in ways that narrow New Delhi’s room for maneuver. The combination of a shrinking role in U.S. maritime strategy and shifting power balances in its own neighbourhood leaves India less central to the emerging order than it once imagined.
The New Prism
What, then, does the world look like when you stop asking who leads and start asking where goods flow, where sensors point, and who writes the cheques?
It looks like U.S. destroyers in Caribbean waters and a War Department in Washington, not to prepare for Baghdad or Hanoi but to police the hemisphere, harden the homeland, and signal that business with Russia might resume after a settlement no one can yet describe. It looks like Beijing and Moscow funding, hosting, and convening — staging parades in Beijing and road-mapping development to 2035 in Tianjin — to keep the Global South close. It looks like icebreakers and LNG carriers working the shoulder seasons in the Arctic while containers mostly stick with Suez, for now, even as spreadsheets in Shanghai and Rotterdam game out polar premiums. And it looks like India — ambitious, sceptical, essential — re-running the math on its role in a world where the Indian Ocean is no longer central to the trade system.
The world order is not flipping; it is settling into new grooves. The United States is still the system’s single most capable actor. But the map on which it acts has changed. The old questions — Will America stay? Will China rise? Will Russia endure? — are less useful than the new ones: Which route will the cargo take this quarter? Which region gets the next radar site? Which bank funds the port?
Those answers now run through Caracas as surely as they run through Tianjin and Vladivostok — and, increasingly, through waters once thought too cold to matter.
