New Empires in the Making: The End of the Post-War Order with Putin and Trump, what If .....

 

(Please Note- This article is AI generated. I gave my idea of asking what will happen if President Trump's America  invade Greenland and how the world would be divided between four emerging world powers.)

The Greenland Precedent and the End of NATO

The modern geopolitical landscape is held together by a web of alliances, treaties, and the principle of state sovereignty. However, a shift toward spheres of influence—where superpowers claim "neighborhoods" as their own—could dismantle this order, giving rise to a new era of global empires.

The idea of a superpower "purchasing" or claiming a sovereign territory like Greenland sets a dangerous precedent. It signals a move away from diplomacy and toward territorial acquisition. Such a move would likely be the final blow for NATO.

If the United States prioritizes land acquisition and isolationism over collective defense, the alliance loses its foundational trust. Without the American security umbrella, the "Transatlantic" era ends, leaving Europe to fend for itself.

The Rise of the New American Empire

If a U.S. administration focuses on a "near abroad" policy—asserting direct control over the Western Hemisphere, including nations like Venezuela—it marks the birth of a New American Empire. This isn't just influence; it's a return to 19th-century geopolitics where the U.S. treats the Americas as its private domain, discarding international law in favor of raw power.

The New Russian and Chinese Domains

In a world without NATO, the gates fly open for expansionist powers:

• The Russian Empire Reborn: Without Western intervention, the conflict in Ukraine could end with total or partial annexation by Moscow. From there, the "domino effect" takes hold. The Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Poland, and Moldova could fall back under a Russian sphere of influence, effectively rebuilding the footprint of the old Soviet Union or the Tsarist Empire.

• China’s Pacific Hegemony: If the U.S. retreats into its own hemisphere, Taiwan and Southeast Asian nations would likely be absorbed into a Chinese-led order. China would become the undisputed master of the Pacific, dictate trade routes, and command the "near abroad" of its coastal waters.

Regional Shifts: India and the Subcontinent

The collapse of global policing would force regional powers to consolidate their borders. In this scenario, India might feel compelled to assert direct control over its neighbours—Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and others—to ensure its own security and resource stability. This would create a South Asian empire, mirroring the actions of the other three giants.

The Result I think would be a fragmented world.

My vision suggests a world carved into four massive blocks: (Plese see the above picture)

• The American Empire (The Americas)
• The New Russian Empire (Eastern Europe and Central Asia)
• The Chinese Empire (East Asia and the Pacific)
• The Indian Sphere (South Asia)

The Casualties of Change:

• Europe: Once a global powerhouse, a "lost Europe" would be caught between the Russian and American spheres, struggling to maintain its identity without a unified military. (European defence force - idea mooted by Angela Merkel)

• Great Britain: The former "Empire on which the sun never set" would find itself a mid-sized island nation, disconnected from its old allies and overshadowed by the new four-way global split. (Tony Blair would be an appinted viceroy of US empire)

We are standing at a crossroads. If the world abandons the rule of law for the rule of the strong, the map of the 21st century will look less like a collection of nations and more like a battlefield of four empires..The transition from a globalized economy to one dominated by four regional empires would trigger a radical shift in how wealth, resources, and power flow across the planet. This isn't just a change in borders; it’s a rewrite of the global financial rules that have existed since 1945.

1. The Death of the Petrodollar

For decades, the "Petrodollar" system—where oil is bought and sold globally using the U.S. Dollar—has been the backbone of American economic power.

• Fragmentation: If the world splits into empires, Russia and China would likely demand payments in their own currencies (the Ruble or Yuan) for energy and goods. (this is already happening with BRICS)

• Loss of Privilege: The U.S. would lose its "exorbitant privilege" of printing money to fund deficits. Without global demand for the dollar to buy oil, the U.S. could face higher interest rates and a permanent increase in the cost of imported goods.

2. The Rise of "Fortress Economics"

• In a world of four empires, "Free Trade" is replaced by "Fortress Economics." Each empire would prioritize its own "Near Abroad" for resources.

• American Empire: Focuses on securing lithium from South America and oil from Venezuela, creating a closed-loop supply chain in the Western Hemisphere.

• Russian/Chinese Blocs: They would control the "Silk Road" routes, dominating the flow of critical minerals and energy across Eurasia.

• India’s Hub: India would likely become the manufacturing and service hub for the Indian Ocean, leveraging its control over Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to dominate regional maritime trade.

3. Supply Chain "Patchwork"

The "Just-in-Time" delivery system that makes products cheap today would collapse.

 Everything—from smartphones to cars—would become more expensive as supply chains are "on-shored" or "friend-shored" within imperial borders. We might see the end of a single internet or universal tech standards. You could have a "Russian/Chinese Web" and an "American/Indian Web," with devices that aren't compatible across imperial lines.

4. The Fate of "Lost Europe" and Britain

Without a unified military or a clear imperial sphere, Europe and the UK would face an economic identity crisis:

The UK: Stripped of its role as a financial bridge between the U.S. and Europe, Britain might struggle to find a "node" to attach to, potentially becoming a vassal state to the American Empire just to maintain its standard of living.

Europe: Caught between the Russian energy giant and the American tech/security giant, Europe might see its industries hollowed out as it pays higher costs for everything from defense to fuel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I think of "a typical morning" would actually feel like for a regular person living in this new world of four empires.

Life in the Four Empires: The "New Normal"

In this world, the freedom of the 2000s—where you could buy anything from anywhere and travel almost anywhere—is replaced by Imperial Citizenship. (Azimov's 'Foundation and  Empire' series come to mind.)

The "Splinternet": Instead of one World Wide Web, you’d likely use a regional network. If you live in the Russian Empire, your social media, search engines, and news are filtered through Moscow’s servers. In the American Empire, "Silicon Valley" becomes a closed ecosystem, perhaps blocked in the Chinese Empire, which uses its own advanced "Great Firewall" apps for everything from banking to dating.

Travel and "Internal" Passports: Crossing from the American Empire to the Chinese Empire wouldn't just be a flight; it would be a major diplomatic event. Movement within your empire (e.g., a Pole traveling to Moscow, or a Brazilian traveling to New York) might be easy, but the borders between the "Four Giants" would be heavily fortified and digitally monitored.

The Shopping Cart Shift: Brand loyalty becomes political. Buying a "foreign" phone or car could be seen as an act of disloyalty—or simply impossible due to massive tariffs. You buy what your empire makes.

The "Buffer Zone" Reality: For people in "Lost Europe" or the UK, life is a balancing act. You might work for an American company but pay for Russian heating and drive a Chinese car, always worried that a change in imperial weather could ruin your local economy.

This will be  a world that is more stable in one sense (no more small "proxy" wars everywhere) but much more rigid. The "Empire" provides security and jobs, but at the cost of personal choice and global connection.

It’s a return to a "balanced globe of human beings," but one where the walls are much higher than they used to be.

Ajith Dharma - 20/01/2026

Riviews for 'Siyama'

Review 1 

As both of us are book lovers and writers—and long-standing friends—I encouraged Ajith Dharmakeerthi to take this story to as many readers as possible. Writing it in English felt like the only practical way to widen that circle, and that was the spirit in which I supported him.

I was humbled to be acknowledged in his book Siyama. I did not expect it, nor did I see my role as anything extraordinary.

Siyama is not a book one reads casually. It is a book one enters—and once inside, there is no looking away.
Through cancer, abuse, abducti

on, violence, and unspeakable suffering, Ajith Dharmakeerthi opens a door into a mind shaped by trauma and survival.
The opening lines prepare us for that descent, and the pages that follow keep their promise. The story is painful, disturbing, and deeply human.
I truly admire the intelligence and courage it took to write Siyama. Handling material like this without exaggeration or drama is not easy. The truth is allowed to speak for itself, and that takes restraint.
Being there for someone—without judgment, without conditions—is not heroism. It’s a responsibility we owe one another.

This book reminds us of that truth. It asks us to listen when silence would be easier, to stay when leaving would be more comfortable, and to care when caring costs us something.

Heartbreaking as it is, Siyama matters. It stands as a quiet but firm reminder that survival is rarely solitary—and that sometimes, simply being there can change the course of a life.

I congratulate Ajith Dharmakeerthi on the successful publication of Siyama—a significant and well-earned step on his path as a writer.
Wishing Siyama a long, thoughtful journey in readers’ hands—and wishing you steady joy in your own words, wherever they go next.

K. H. D. Chandani

From a reader posted in Amazon: 

This powerful and deeply moving novel explores an unlikely friendship forged far from home, set against the backdrop of student life in the UK. What begins as a simple meeting between two young people from the same continent quickly transforms into an unforgettable journey of healing, empathy, and the quiet strength found in human connection.

One protagonist arrives carrying the invisible scars of a violent childhood shaped by political turmoil and social unrest. The author handles these traumatic experiences with sensitivity, offering a vivid yet respectful portrayal of how such a past shapes one’s identity, fears, and hopes. In contrast, the other student is warm, understanding, and grounded—someone whose compassion becomes a lifeline. Their growing bond feels authentic and beautifully paced, unfolding through small acts of kindness, honest conversations, and moments of quiet solidarity.

The writing is touching and emotionally resonant, drawing readers deep into each character’s inner world. What truly sets the novel apart is its ability to balance heart-wrenching realities with moments of genuine warmth and humor. It never feels heavy for the sake of being heavy; instead, it is filled with humanity. Overall, this is a gripping, heartfelt novel that explores trauma, resilience, and the remarkable impact of kindness. It keeps you emotionally invested from beginning to end and offers a powerful reminder that even the unlikeliest friendships can change our lives.

From Amazon  India

The book beautifully portrays how early relationships shape emotional resilience later in life. The themes of cultural differences, trust, and emotional survival are handled with maturity and sensitivity. Priyan and Siyama’s friendship shows how human connection can exist beyond labels and societal expectations. The narrative is calm, reflective, and emotionally grounded. It’s a meaningful read for anyone who values emotional intelligence and human relationships.

Goodreads

Siyama is one of those books that quietly settles into your heart. The campus setting, emotional conversations, and slow-building friendship create a comforting yet powerful reading experience. It explores trauma and identity with grace and empathy. I loved how the story highlights emotional safety and human connection as strengths, not weaknesses. This book feels intimate, reflective, and meaningful perfect for readers who enjoy emotionally rich stories that linger.

If Lenin Were Alive Today, He Would Have Written like this...

If Lenin Were Alive Today, He Would Have Written like tthis...

***************************************************************************

I’ve been thinking about going back to 1916 and revisiting Lenin’s work. The reason is that I used to study it while I was working on my engineering degree in the Soviet Union. So, I have a basic understanding of the book and the issues involved.

In his 1916 work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Vladimir Lenin argues that imperialism is not just a "policy" chosen by leaders, but a necessary economic stage of capitalism.

To analyze today's world through Lenin’s eyes, we first have to look at the five "pillars" he used to define an imperialist power.

1. The Five Pillars of Lenin’s Imperialism

According to Lenin, a nation becomes "imperialist" when its economy reaches these five conditions:

1. Monopoly - Small businesses are swallowed by giant corporations (Monopolies/Trusts).

2. Finance Capital - Banks and industry merge. A "financial oligarchy" (Wall Street, etc.) runs the country.

3. Export of Capital - Nations stop just selling "goods" (cars, toys) and start exporting "money" (loans, investments) to control other countries.

4. Global Cartels - International monopolies (like Big Tech or Big Oil) divide the global market among themselves.

5. Territorial Division - The great powers finish "carving up" the world; from then on, they can only "re-divide" it through war.

Vladimir Lenin, in his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, argued that modern, finance-driven imperialism was the highest and final stage of capitalism as an economic system, not that imperialism was a new phenomenon in history. He was defining a specific, modern form of imperialism fundamentally tied to the industrial and financial structures of late-stage capitalism. 

Key distinctions between ancient and modern imperialism, according to a Marxist-Leninist framework, are:

Ancient Imperialism: This form, as seen with Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, and others, was primarily driven by the direct acquisition of territory, resources (such as slaves and tribute), and military power. It relied on pre-capitalist economic systems like feudalism or slavery.

Modern (Capitalist) Imperialism: Lenin argued this form was a necessary development of mature industrial capitalism, characterized by the dominance of monopolies and finance capital. 

Its primary drivers were:

Export of Capital: Instead of just exporting goods, capitalist nations began exporting investment capital to other countries to seek higher profits [1].

Economic Partitioning: Great powers competed to divide the world into economic spheres of influence for raw materials, markets, and investment opportunities, leading to conflict (e.g., World War I) .

Financial Control: The focus was less on direct, large-scale territorial rule and more on establishing economic and financial control over other nations through investment, loans, and monopolies.

2. Analysis of Current Global Events by Lenin at 2026

Donald Trump & Venezuela

The Goal: Control of the world’s largest oil reserves and the removal of "non-hemispheric" actors (China/Russia) from the U.S. "backyard."

Leninist View: Lenin would see this as a classic case of "re-division." The U.S. isn't just attacking a dictator; it is attempting to secure "raw material bases" for its own monopolies. He would argue that the "Monro Doctrine" (as some call it) is the financial oligarchy using the military to protect its exclusive "sphere of influence" against rivals.

Russia & Ukraine

The Goal: Territorial expansion and maintaining a "buffer zone" against NATO.

Leninist View: This is more complex. While some argue Russia is a "weaker" capitalist power, Lenin would likely focus on the "Great Russian Chauvinism" and the attempt to violently re-divide territory. He would view the war as a conflict between two imperialist blocs: Russian capital trying to hold its "near abroad" vs. Western finance capital (NATO/EU) trying to expand its market and investment reach into Ukraine.

China's Expansionism

The Goal: The "Belt and Road Initiative," infrastructure loans, and South China Sea claims.

Leninist View: China is the clearest modern example of Lenin's "Export of Capital." By lending billions to developing nations for infrastructure, China creates a "debt-dependency." Lenin would call this "debt-imperialism"—controlling a country's resources and politics not with a governor, but with a bank loan.

Indian Expansionism

The Goal: Regional dominance in South Asia and competition with China.

Leninist View: Lenin would likely classify India as a "sub-imperialist" power or a "rising monopoly power." While it doesn't yet dominate global finance like the U.S., its domestic monopolies (like Adani or Reliance) are increasingly looking for "spheres of influence" in neighboring countries to export their own capital and secure resources.

3. Comparison: Then vs. Now

While Lenin’s 1916 analysis still feels relevant, two things have changed significantly:

Invisible Borders: In 1916, imperialism meant planting a flag (Colonialism). Today, it is often Neocolonialism—a country remains "independent" on paper, but its economy is owned by foreign banks and corporations.

Multipolarity: In Lenin's time, Britain was the undisputed king. Today, we see a "clash of imperialisms" where the U.S., China, and Russia are all competing to re-divide a world that is already fully occupied.

Lenin believed that because the world is "finished" being divided, these powers will inevitably go to war to take pieces from each other. He saw imperialism as the "eve of the social revolution" because the system becomes too violent and unstable to survive.

But then again Lenin's brainchild Soviet Union was viewd as a not only a global power but also as socialist imperialist country who contrlled eastern bloc. And the 'Social revelusion' would not happen 'soon'.

To analyze the Soviet Union as "social-imperialist" and address why the "social revolution" hasn't arrived, we have to look at how Lenin’s own theories were turned against his successors.

4. The Concept of "Social-Imperialism"

The term "Social-Imperialism"—defined as "Socialist in words, Imperialist in deeds"—was actually popularized by Mao Zedong during the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960s.

If we apply Lenin’s own criteria to this- Stalin's WWII Soviet Union, we can argue:

• The Eastern Bloc as a "Sphere of Influence": Through the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, the USSR treated Eastern Europe as a closed market. They extracted raw materials (like Polish coal) and sold finished goods back to them, mirroring the "metropole-colony" relationship.

• Military Intervention: When Hungary (1956) or Czechoslovakia (1968) tried to leave the Soviet orbit, the USSR used military force to maintain its "territorial division." To a Leninist purist, this looks exactly like a Great Power protecting its "monopoly" over a region.

• Export of "Capital" (Ideology/Aid): While they didn't export private bank capital, they exported "State Capital" in the form of massive infrastructure loans and military aid to "client states" in Africa and Asia to ensure they stayed within the Soviet geopolitical bloc.

5. Why hasn't the "Social Revolution" happened?

Lenin predicted that imperialism was the "final stage" and would lead to a global collapse. Why did he get the timing so wrong?

A. The "Labor Aristocracy" Lenin actually had an answer for this. He argued that imperialist countries use "super-profits" from the exploited Global South to bribe their own working class at home. By providing higher wages, healthcare, and better living conditions, the "revolutionary fire" in countries like the U.S. or UK was extinguished. The workers became "partners" in the empire rather than its enemies.

B. The Flexibility of Finance Capitalism proved much more "elastic" than Lenin expected. Through the IMF, World Bank, and digital finance, imperialist powers found ways to manage crises and prevent the total economic collapse Lenin thought was imminent.

C. The Shift to "Informal" Empire

Today, empires don't need to occupy a country to control it. Global powers use debt traps and digital infrastructure. Because there are no visible "occupying soldiers," it is harder to mobilize a traditional "national liberation" revolution. The oppression is systemic and financial rather than just military.

 Modern Reality

Lenin viewed imperialism as a dead end. However, history suggests it might be a cycle.

When one hegemon (like the US) weakens, the world doesn't necessarily move toward a socialist revolution; instead, new "aspiring" imperialists (like China or India) step in to compete for the re-division of the world. This creates the "multipolar" world we see today—one that Lenin would recognize as a very dangerous "pre-war" environment, rather than a peaceful transition to something new.

-Ajith 05/01/2026

Lenin's book is here: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism