This is not a report about a system in crisis. It is a report about a system being taken apart, deliberately and often proudly, by those who believe that demolition is not a regrettable cost of politics but its central virtue.
The authors advance a blunt thesis: the post-1945 international order is not merely eroding under pressure; it is being dismantled by political forces that have lost faith in reform itself. In place of incremental correction, they favor rupture. In place of repair, spectacle. The report’s governing metaphor—wrecking-ball politics—is not rhetorical excess. It captures a political mood that has spread across democracies and authoritarian systems alike, one rooted in frustration with stagnant living standards, institutional paralysis, and the sense that existing arrangements no longer deliver improvement or dignity.
What gives Under Destruction its force is that it refuses to caricature this impulse. The authors acknowledge that resentment toward institutions is not invented. Public opinion data show confidence in democratic governance collapsing across the G7. Majorities no longer believe their governments are building a better future. Courts are seen as obstacles, bureaucracies as self-serving, international organizations as rigid and unresponsive. Against that backdrop, demolition comes to feel like honesty rather than nihilism.
Yet the report is unsparing about where this logic leads.
America, architect turned demolition crew
The most unsettling argument in Under Destruction is also its most persuasive: the United States, the principal builder of the postwar order, has become its most consequential unraveler. Under Donald Trump’s second term, destruction is no longer episodic or tactical. It has become structural.
The report draws a sharp distinction between past episodes of American unilateralism and the present moment. Previous administrations bent rules, stretched norms, and occasionally violated international law—but they still treated the system as worth preserving. The current administration increasingly treats rules themselves as constraints to be escaped. Multilateralism is reframed as weakness. International law as optional. Sovereignty as freedom from obligation rather than capacity through cooperation.
What emerges, the authors argue, is something close to a personalist foreign policy, in which instinct substitutes for doctrine and deals replace institutions. This shift is magnified by the erosion of internal constraints on presidential power. With fewer guardrails and a more ideologically aligned team, Trump’s impulses increasingly are American foreign policy.
The consequences are most acutely felt in Europe. Long accustomed to strategic reassurance, European governments now confront an American posture that oscillates between conditional support, coercive pressure, and open disdain. The report captures the psychological shock of this transition with precision. The problem is not simply uncertainty; it is the realization that assumptions once treated as permanent were, in fact, contingent.
Notably, the authors resist the temptation to portray Europe as merely a victim. Dependence, they note, was cultivated. Autonomy was deferred. Still, the speed and volatility of Washington’s shift leave little time for adaptation. Trust, once fractured, does not regenerate on demand.
The Indo-Pacific and the discipline of hedging
If Europe appears shaken, the Indo-Pacific appears quietly alarmed. The report describes a region navigating between an increasingly assertive China and a United States whose commitments appear fluid, transactional, and occasionally contradictory. Unlike Europe, Indo-Pacific states lack thick institutional buffers. There is no NATO equivalent, no shared political identity to cushion strategic doubt.
As a result, hedging becomes the dominant posture. States increase defense spending, diversify partnerships, and quietly prepare for scenarios they hope never materialize. The report avoids melodrama, but its warning is clear: ambiguity corrodes deterrence. When guarantees become conditional, alignment becomes provisional.
What makes this analysis compelling is its attention to atmosphere rather than incident. The danger is not a single act of abandonment, but the slow normalization of doubt. Security, the authors remind us, rests as much on belief as on capability.
Trade, aid, and the politics of neglect
One of the report’s most consequential sections lies outside traditional security debates. Its examination of global trade and development assistance reveals how destruction operates far from battlefields, in places where the victims are least visible.
The authors document the collapse of confidence in the global trade regime, accelerated by Washington’s embrace of unilateral tariffs and coercive bargaining, alongside China’s weaponization of economic chokepoints. Middle and smaller powers find themselves squeezed between two giants rewriting rules at will. The result is not a new order, but a fragmented marketplace governed by leverage rather than law.
Even more troubling is the chapter on development and humanitarian assistance. Here the report’s tone grows somber. Budget cuts, ideological hostility to global frameworks, and the rejection of the Sustainable Development Goals converge into what the authors rightly describe as an existential crisis. The retreat of traditional donors is not being offset. The consequences are measured not in percentages but in lives. Child mortality, the report notes, is projected to rise again—an outcome that once seemed relegated to history.
This is not framed as moral failure alone. It is strategic blindness. Development and humanitarian systems are treated not as pillars of stability but as dispensable luxuries. The report makes clear that this illusion will not hold.
Is anything being built?
To its credit, Under Destruction does not dismiss arguments that disruption can unlock change. The authors engage seriously with claims that bulldozer politics has forced overdue movement—on NATO defense spending, on Gaza, on diplomatic deadlock more broadly. They acknowledge that shock can concentrate attention where diplomacy has stalled.
But the report’s verdict is measured and skeptical. Ceasefires without settlements, deals without law, pressure without legitimacy—these are pauses, not solutions. Conflict data cited in the report suggest that violence has not receded where destruction was supposed to clear the way for peace. The danger, the authors argue, is mistaking motion for progress.
In a world stripped of rules, the powerful adapt. The vulnerable absorb the impact. What emerges is not creative destruction but selective survival.
After the order
The report’s final chapters sketch possible futures without insisting on inevitability. A world of spheres of influence. A deals-based system governed by personal relationships. A “neo-royalist” order dominated by elite networks and private interests. These are not speculative abstractions. Elements of all three are already visible.
Ukraine and Venezuela appear as early laboratories of this emerging logic, where sovereignty becomes negotiable and peace is reframed as transactional management by powerful actors. Law recedes. Universality fades. What replaces it is not chaos, but hierarchy.
Still, Under Destruction does not end in resignation. Its closing argument is demanding rather than consoling. Those who oppose demolition politics cannot merely defend what existed. They must demonstrate that reform is possible, that institutions can adapt, and that power can be exercised without nihilism. Nostalgia, the authors insist, is not a strategy.
The report leaves readers with an uncomfortable clarity. Orders do not vanish on their own. They are dismantled by choices—sometimes cheered, often justified, rarely reversed. Whether this one can still be rebuilt remains an open question. What Under Destruction makes unmistakable is that the cost of pretending otherwise will be paid by those with the least capacity to absorb collapse.
Short link: