Jonathan Bergman reviews The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order by Alexander Stubb (Columbia Global Reports, 2026.)
The title The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order captures Finnish president Alexander Stubb’s view of the current balance of power in international politics, and how to navigate in the increasingly disorderly political landscape. The book examines how the post-1945 order came to its end and offers a proposal, which Stubb calls “values-based realism”, for restoring legitimacy to the principles that once upheld this order. This newly minted concept is an approach that seeks to bridge the traditional divide in international relations/foreign policy between realpolitik and liberal idealism by adhering to universal values such as fundamental rights and international rules while also addressing the importance of deeply rooted historical experiences and cultural diversity. This instrument of foreign policy and the philosophy behind is thus anchored in promoting traditionally liberal values more respectfully instead of the arguably moralizing and preaching ways it has been promoted in modern and contemporary history.
The triangle, much as Stubb’s public speaking appearances, has three points in which each point carries an important message or position: the world has now entered a period of “interregnum”; the triangle of power consists of the Global West, Global East and Global South with the latter becoming the decisive swing force; and only renewed, “values‑based” multilateral cooperation can prevent this triangular competition from sliding into instability and conflict.
The book’s thesis draws heavily on Stubb’s experiences in international politics, ranging from his studies in the US, France, Belgium, and the UK to his subsequent roles in multilateral institutions, the Finnish Government, academia, and ultimately concluding in his presidency of Finland, providing an interesting depth that forms the backbone for his thoughts.
Firstly, Stubb argues that the post-1945 order and its reliance on containing state’s self-interests through global rules and interdependence has not stood the test of time. Furthermore, while he acknowledges the successes of globalization for some countries, he highlights the asymmetries in its distribution that ultimately eroded the very foundations of its legitimacy. He also underlines how the post-9/11 era saw the West itself acting in ways that contradicted many of the norms itself preached about for the surrounding world. Together with the 2008 financial crisis and the internal European and Western tensions that followed, these developments consequently weakened Western authority while China’s rise accelerated and Russian aggressive revisionism intensified. This pattern of trends, according to Stubb, has led the international system into what he calls an ‘interregnum’: an era of uncertainty in the international system that is characterized by eclectic cooperation, blurred boundaries between peace and war, and the weaponization of energy, technology and information. In this context, he states that trust has become the vital antidote to the current disorder.
The current “interregnum” is, according to Stubb, comparable to the historically transformative milestones in international politics of 1918, 1945, and 1989. In this moment, however, the destabilizing components are the mixture of the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war on Ukraine, global democratic backsliding, rapid technological advancements, and the return of MAGA republicanism. Thus, according to Stubb, the coming years will prove to be decisive in determining how the international system and international politics will look like for the remainder of this century. Here, the answer to the current disorder is also drawn from historical analogies, as Stubb urges to ensure that the ultimately decisive moment should resemble the multilateral spirit of the Helsinki accords in 1975 – namely in easing tensions, distributing agency and ensuring rights and rules in a cooperative manner – rather than the multipolar spirit of Yalta in 1945, when the world was divided into spheres of influence among a few great powers.
Secondly, the triangle of power consists of three broad groups, that Stubb calls the Global West, the Global East, and the Global South. The Global West comprises roughly 15 percent of the world’s population and over half of global GDP. It also shares a broad range of values, belonging to institutions and history, but it is increasingly affected by distrust and inequality. The Global East, led by China and supported by Russia and other autocracies, is in this sense characterized by hegemonic state-centered assertive foreign policy.
To break free from this bloc constellation, Stubb argues that the Global South, which makes up half of the world’s population but not more than a quarter of global GDP, is a kingmaker in shaping the next world order. In sum, the Global South holds the decisive power to tip the scales in favor of either the Global West or the Global East, and both parties will seek to convince and persuade the Global South.
Thirdly, in navigating the “interregnum”, Stubb proposes creating a new form of multilateral framework that remains institution-based while recognizing the shortcomings and successes of existing institutions. More importantly, this entails increasing inclusiveness by rejecting previous notions of Western-centric views by granting the Global South greater agency and engaging with it more closely. This, according to Stubb, would complement existing power structures in a way where power is distributed and balanced in a way that favors the views of both the Global South and the Global West, thus trumping the hegemonic alternative the Global East offers. However, for such an alignment to realize and remain genuinely attractive for the Global South, the Global West must reform existing institutions and correct existing power structures in ways that genuinely repair distrust, correct imbalances, and address widespread anxieties about global governance.
That is to say that in contrast to championing multipolarity with its transactional alliances and great-powers bargaining over and marginalizing smaller states, he instead makes the argument for rejuvenating and reforming multilateralism. In his view, rules-based cooperation and institutions produce order, whereas multipolarity produces disorder and conflicts.
Stubb argues for rejuvenating and reforming multilateralism because rules-based cooperation and institutions produce order whereas multipolarity produces disorder and conflicts. Ultimately, his book points out the need for a more inclusive and fair multilateral system in which common interests are held in higher regard than self-interest. However, this requires a concerted effort to address the grievances and claims that populism thrives on and to restore legitimacy of multilateralism – something that cannot be completed if states are not willing to engage and cooperate with states that do not hold the same perspectives and perceptions of foreign policy.
The Triangle of Power is a well-informed and reader-friendly piece that offers tools for navigating a disorderly landscape. However, much of how the situation might play out is, as Stubb rightly points out, up to the Global South. But how can the Global West posture itself to genuinely convince the Global South and put forward a joint effort to ensure that this noble cause does not fall flat or remain in ideational space?
Might it be possible to tip the scales and even convince a greater power alongside the mentioned middle powers?
Even so, the Global South is not a monolithic block, although the book’s categorization might lead readers astray on that part. It is important to remember that even within one bloc, perceptions of the Global West may differ significantly. Nonetheless, the books core idea-to contain and perhaps even prevent further global disorder-is worth striving for, and further discussion on how to achieve this is most welcome. Furthermore, connecting to the book’s overarching theme of order and peace, and seeing as the book was written by a Finnish head of state, one’s thoughts are naturally steered toward Finland’s foreign policy traditions within mediation, and perhaps even more interestingly toward the legacy of one of Stubb’s role models, Martti Ahtisaari (former Finnish president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate of 2008). In this sense, I believe Stubb has opened the stage for further discussion, especially seeing as the book is not overly theoretical in any sense. This means it will most likely appeal to and reach a broader audience than international relations theory or international law connoisseurs.
Jonathan Bergman is an Assistant Editor at the Review of Democracy.
