EDITOR'S CORNER: Who Holds the Power?

Finnish President Alexander Stubb wrote an interesting book called The Triangle of Power. It refers to the concentration of power among superpowers and how these powers seek to rule their respective parts of the world. Before WWII, we lived in such a world. After the destruction and horror of the greatest conflict in history, power became more dispersed. Although it remained concentrated among the superpowers, smaller nations had more freedom and choice than ever before.

Recently, President Stubb suggested that he should have called his book The Rectangle of Power instead. What has changed?

In this blog, I want to explore the idea that the world's power is once again becoming concentrated among a few superpowers. How does this affect smaller nations? Do we live in a decaying world?

FROM TRIANGLE TO RECTANGLE, WHAT CHANGED?

In the book, Stubb describes a world shaped by three centres of power. These are traditional models that most of us are familiar with. The United States leads the Global West, consisting of around 50 countries, including Europe, Japan, South Korea and Australia. China leads the Global East, followed by Russia, Iran and other countries, with the ambition of changing the existing international order. The newest addition to this model is the Global South. These are countries that increasingly want to shape the international order on their own terms. India is one such example, and one of the emerging powers within this group. This is how the Triangle of Power is reflected in the world: three spheres competing for power and influence, each with a different vision for the future.

However, in this original model, the United States and Europe are partners. They have traditionally been on the same page and part and parcel of each other's plans. Under Trump, however, this has changed. Washington and European capitals are increasingly moving away from a shared viewpoint. There is very much a love-hate-tolerance relationship between Europe and America. On the one hand, European nations remain dependent on the United States for defence and other matters. On the other hand, Trump has openly criticised the European Union, even claiming that it was created to "screw the United States". 

This is where the triangle-to-rectangle connection comes from. In this revised model, the United States and Europe are no longer part of the same geopolitical grouping. The US is increasingly focused on its own interests and the Western Hemisphere, while Europe and other traditional allies remain committed to preserving the multilateral international order. The West is no longer a united power, but one increasingly divided between Trump's America First approach and Europe's determination to protect its democratic values and institutions. 

THE RETURN OF SPHERES OF INFLUENCE

One of the most interesting developments in recent times is the renewed emphasis on spheres of influence in international politics. Great powers have always sought to expand their influence and protect their own interests. However, the post-war international order was built, at least in principle, on the idea that countries have the right to determine their own future, regardless of their size or influence. Today, that principle is facing increasing pressure as major powers seek greater control over their strategic neighbourhoods and regions.

This can be seen quite clearly in the actions of the United States, China and Russia. The United States has increasingly focused its attention on the Western Hemisphere, a policy that has become known as the "Donroe Doctrine", a play on the original Monroe Doctrine. China has its Belt and Road Initiative, which extends across neighbouring regions and beyond, creating trade connections, infrastructure projects and new economic opportunities. At the same time, China continues to exert military and political pressure on Taiwan, while tensions with other countries, including Japan, remain significant. Russia is perhaps the most overtly aggressive example. It invaded Ukraine and, under Putin's leadership, has repeatedly questioned its status as an independent nation, arguing that it belongs within Russia's historical sphere of influence.

As these great powers pursue their geopolitical interests, competition over territory, resources and trade routes intensifies. Strategic partnerships become more important than ever. But is this the kind of world we want to live in? A world where bigger nations have more influence and power simply because of their size, while smaller nations have less say in their own future? Are we moving towards a world where agreements between powerful nations matter more than common rules?

THE DIMMINISHING FREEDOM OF SMALLER NATIONS 

For smaller nations, this changing balance of power creates a very uncomfortable reality. Their ability to decide their own future has traditionally depended on international law, strong institutions, and relatively balanced alliances and cooperation. When these mechanisms are weakened, smaller nations become more exposed to the demands and interests of larger powers. Their political and economic choices may increasingly be influenced by considerations that extend far beyond their own borders.

For Finland, this is far more than a theoretical concern. Few countries understand the importance of sovereignty and self-determination as deeply as a nation that has fought to preserve its independence next to a much larger neighbour. Our history has taught us the price of freedom and the importance of being able to decide our own future. Today, Finland once again finds itself navigating a changing geopolitical landscape, sharing a long border with an increasingly aggressive Russia. 

The question is how a small nation can maintain its freedom in a world where military strength, economic leverage and geopolitical influence matter more than ever. Can smaller nations preserve their independence without becoming dependent on another great power?

THE DECAY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, OR A NEW BEGINNING?

As we get further into the details of current developments, it is tempting to think that the world is simply falling apart. International institutions that have long been the backbone of international cooperation, democracy and respect for sovereignty are increasingly under pressure. Institutions such as the WHO and the United Nations, and even alliances like NATO, face challenges from within. Established alliances are being questioned, and the principles that have guided the international order for decades seem increasingly difficult to uphold. Perhaps we are witnessing the gradual decay of the international order that emerged after WWII. But is this the end of the story?

History is constantly changing, and international orders evolve with new governments and leaders. The more important question is what will replace the existing system. Are we returning to a world where bigger powers bully smaller ones, or will smaller nations continue to have a voice on the world stage?

One interesting development is the emergence of middle powers and their growing willingness to work together. Canada is an interesting example. Its Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has openly challenged US policies and argued that middle powers must unite to defend their interests rather than compete for the favour of larger powers. In his January 2026 speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Carney made a clear case for cooperation, saying: "If we're not at the table, we're on the menu."

India is another important example. With its growing economy and international influence, India is in a position to play a bigger role in shaping the emerging world order. However, it has been careful to preserve its strategic independence, maintaining relations with the West while also cooperating with Russia and China. Like many middle powers, India wants the freedom to make its own decisions and build partnerships on its own terms.

CONCLUSION

The world is changing, and the balance of power is shifting once again. The growing rivalry between major powers, the return of spheres of influence and the weakening of international institutions all raise difficult questions about the future of smaller nations. For countries such as Finland, the importance of sovereignty and the right to determine their own future is not an abstract principle but a lesson written into their history. 

Yet this changing world is not necessarily without hope. If middle powers and smaller nations work together, they can still have a meaningful voice in shaping the international order. The question is whether we allow the future to be decided by the strongest, or work together to build a world where every nation, regardless of its size, has the right to choose its own path.