This article is based on AI-retrieved sources and subsequently subjected to an extensive AI-based critique. The critical conclusion is:

The article makes a valuable contribution to understanding Trump-era international relations and the realistic vulnerabilities of the post-WWII order to external shock. However, it presents emergent trends as accomplished transformations and hidden processes as more developed than current evidence supports.

The safest conclusion: International relations are transitioning from rules-based certainty toward transaction-based uncertainty, but the pace of change so far is slower and institutional persistence is stronger than one would think. The “hidden wiring” described does exist, but so does the visible architecture—and the visible architecture remains remarkably robust despite unprecedented political turbulence. See https://www.lelundin.com/post/ai-critique-of-trends-from-multilateralism-to-transactionalism

The Shift from Rules to Deals

For decades, international relations operated under what diplomats called a “rules-based order”—a system where countries agreed to follow established treaties, respect multilateral institutions, and engage in stable, predictable relationships. But that world is changing. Today, a new approach to foreign policy is emerging: transactionalism, where each deal is negotiated separately, security guarantees are contingent on economic concessions, and traditional partnerships are being renegotiated as commercial transactions. Understanding this shift is crucial for comprehending current events—from the Greenland controversy to shifting relationships between major powers.

What Does Transactionalism Mean?

Transactionalism means treating international relationships as business deals rather than long-term partnerships based on shared values. Instead of asking “How do we work together on shared interests?” leaders ask “What’s the return on investment for my country?”

President Trump’s approach exemplifies this philosophy. His famous claim that Denmark “must allow us to take over Greenland” reflects transactional thinking: if the US provides security and economic benefits, shouldn’t Denmark provide territorial concessions? Similarly, his tariff threats against Canada and traditional allies represent economic pressure tactics to extract concessions, transforming security relationships into bargaining chips.

This represents a fundamental break from the post-World War II international system, where the United States anchored a coalition of like-minded democracies around shared values. Now, explicit linkages appear between security commitments and economic performance: European countries must meet defense spending demands while reducing trade surpluses, adapting digital regulations to favor American companies, and decoupling from Chinese markets—all presented as conditions for continued US security protection.

The Question: What Escapes Public View?

Here’s where genuine uncertainty emerges: to what extent are these transactional arrangements happening quietly, without public scrutiny?  And how much continues on the basis of longer term agreements without transactional focus? The question touches on something difficult to measure.

Defense and military cooperation often continues through established channels with minimal publicity. NATO military exercises proceed. Intelligence sharing continues. Equipment upgrades happen. Bilateral defense agreements accumulate. Much of this work occurs outside headline news. However, there are signs of strain. The US possible withdrawal from leadership roles in Europe (note the SACEUR position discussions) and ambiguous security commitments suggest these mechanisms and processes are increasingly tested.

International assistance and development aid appear more resilient than transactional politics might suggest. Official development assistance through established multilateral channels—the World Bank, UN development programs, bilateral arrangements with allied nations— seem to continue on conventional paths. However, the composition is changing. Economic assistance is increasingly linked to strategic interests. Aid that previously flowed on humanitarian grounds now carries explicit geopolitical expectations. But we will need wait before having access to detailed statistics.

Trade agreements represent the most visible battleground. Trump’s tariff threats against Canada and Mexico deliberately weaponize trade policy, extracting political concessions through economic pressure. But behind this headline drama, substantial quiet negotiations continue. Many trade relationships are being renegotiated bilaterally rather than through multilateral forums like the WTO. Countries are reconsidering global supply chains, with security considerations now driving decisions previously based purely on efficiency.

The Canada-China Meeting: Exception or Pattern?

The recent meetings between Canadian and Chinese leaders didn’t receive as much international fanfare as they deserved. This is revealing. When the Canadian Prime Minister faced crushing tariff threats and political isolation from the Trump administration, Canada suddenly discovered new diplomatic space with China. This wasn’t unique to Canada.

Similar patterns appear across the Global South and among traditional US allies. India deepens ties with Russia despite US disapproval. European countries explore “strategic autonomy” partnerships with China and India. The underlying logic: if the traditional US-led system no longer provides reliable guarantees, countries must hedge their bets by developing alternative relationships.

These meetings and agreements are often minimized by Western media precisely because they represent subtle realignment. A Canadian delegation visiting Beijing, signing technical agreements on trade and investment, might seem mundane. But it signals that countries no longer assume US dominance is automatic or that security partnerships guarantee permanent economic preferences.

The Europe-China Relationship: Strategic Recalibration

European leaders face perhaps the most complex transactional calculus. Europe has historically relied on US military security while pursuing its own economic interests, sometimes in tension with American policy. Today, that implicit bargain is renegotiated explicitly.

The European Union, representing the world’s largest single market, possesses significant bargaining power. EU nations comprise 45% of all foreign direct investment in the United States and absorbed 50% of US LNG exports in 2023. Yet Trump administration pressure has lead to Europe increasing defense spending substantially (toward 3,5% of GDP), considering US-friendly digital regulations, and trade surpluses with the US —all while questioning NATO reliability.

In response, European leaders pursue what strategists call “hedging strategies.” These involve:

• Accelerated defense spending more and more directed toward European rather than American suppliers, building indigenous European capabilities
• Strategic autonomy initiatives like developing European rapid reaction forces
• Economic diversification, developing alternatives to US-dominated financial systems and exploring carefully calibrated partnership opportunities with China
• Partnerships with middle powers: deepening relationships with India, Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN as counterweights to overdependence on either the US or China

Notably, these initiatives don’t represent a “pivot away from America” but rather preparation for reduced American availability. European leaders publicly affirm NATO commitment while quietly building independent capacity—hedging against uncertainty about American resolve.

Europe-India Relations: The Emerging Axis

The Europe-India relationship deserves particular attention. Democratic India, facing its own security challenges in the Indo-Pacific and Central Asia, increasingly aligns with European interests on values-based issues (rule of law, anti-authoritarianism) while maintaining pragmatic economic ties with Russia and China.

European nations are developing “strategic partnerships” with India—combining security dialogues with economic cooperation. These relationships develop with minimal public controversy because they don’t directly challenge US positions. Yet they represent quiet capability-building and coalition development outside traditional Western frameworks.

The Visible and Hidden Layers

What continues “beneath the political radar”—admits no simple answer because such activities, by definition, lack transparency. However, patterns suggest:

Visible transactionalism: Greenland disputes, tariff threats, explicit security-for-spending demands, trade disputes—these play out in headlines and serve political purposes by demonstrating US strength.

Hidden continuity: Established military cooperation, intelligence sharing, professional military exchanges continue through bureaucratic channels. These mechanisms have decades of institutional momentum and may survive political turbulence – although an escalated Greenland crisis may threaten also this.

Emerging quiet realignment: New partnerships, particularly between Europe and Asia (India, Japan, South Korea), develop without fanfare. Bilateral investment and technology partnerships increase. Trade relationships adjust. These don’t require dramatic announcements and thus escape sustained media attention.

The General Picture

We’re witnessing a fundamental reconfiguration of international order, not merely temporary disagreements. Several interconnected trends define our moment:

1. The end of assumed American leadership in maintaining global order, forcing others to provide for their own security and economic interests
2. Disaggregation of multilateralism into bilateral relationships and smaller coalitions
3. Explicit linkage of security and economic policy where previously these domains operated separately
4. Hedging and diversification as standard strategy, with countries maintaining multiple partnerships simultaneously rather than choosing sides
5. Technological and supply chain fragmentation replacing integrated global systems

For European nations, this produces particular tension: NATO membership and transatlantic security remain important, yet cannot be assumed. Defense investment accelerates while military independence is developed. Trade disputes continue while economic alternatives are explored. Chinese engagement deepens while security vigilance against Beijing continues.

For the Non-Expert: What This Means

Imagine international relations shifting from a stable neighborhood (with established relationships and mutual expectations) toward a dynamic marketplace (where every interaction is negotiated afresh).

The Trump administration’s transactional approach makes this shift visible. But it accelerates underlying trends that were already developing. Rising powers like India and China no longer accept passive roles. European nations question whether past security commitments remain reliable. Middle powers seek flexibility rather than alignment with superpowers.

The Greenland episode, Canadian-Chinese meetings, European rearmament, and India-Europe partnerships aren’t separate stories but chapters in a single narrative: the old order’s transformation into something more contingent, more fragmented, and less predictable.

Some cooperation continues quietly because professional relationships and institutional momentum persist. But the underlying architecture—the assumptions that bound the post-1945 system—is being renegotiated. This happens partly in headlines and partly in meetings few notice. Understanding both layers is essential for comprehending our current geopolitical moment.

Lars-Erik Lundin