2026 is both strange and surreal. Even though we are predictably surprised, what Trump is unleashing on the world was all meticulously documented. For example, page 184 of Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, expressly called for “re-hemisphering” to “eliminate some of the more recent supply-chain issues” faced by the US including “reduc(ing) reliance on distant and manipulable sources of fossil fuels” (read West Asia). Project 2025 also spoke about how nations like “Venezuela, Colombia, Guyana, and Ecuador (were) either increasingly regional security threats in their own rights or…vulnerable to hostile extra-continental powers” (read China and Russia). It went on to argue that “the U.S. has an opportunity to lead these democratic neighbours…(and this) leadership and collaboration must span all tools at the disposal of US allies and partners, including security-focused cooperation”. This is being carefully operationalised through the White House’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), which mirrors, to a large degree, the US Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy, Elbridge Colby’s book The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict. The main Project 2025 document, published April 21, 2023. Photo: Wikimedia commonsThe refocusing on South America for resource replenishing, pushing Europe to tackle Russia, sustained power projection into the Indo-Pacific and preventing China from hegemonic status in Asia are all core elements from the NSS. This is precisely why President Trump is reestablishing the Monroe (recast as the Donroe) doctrine. Given the Project2025.observer estimates that President Trump’s administration has already implemented about 50% of the proposal – made possible in part because over 50 senior officials in the Trump administration, including 70% of the cabinet, are aligned to organisations backing Project 2025 – progressive forces should have taken this document much more seriously. This is especially because this document is the culmination and part of a larger “international ideological axis” that organisations like the Heritage Foundation and networks like the International Democratic Union, the Movement, National Conservatism Conference, Conservative Political Action Conference etc. have painstakingly created over years. Collectively, they have unleashed undemocratic upsurges against the liberal world order, as well as progressive values and parties in numerous nations including the USA, United Kingdom, India, Germany, France, Netherlands, Hungary etc. It is no coincidence that 91 countries representing 72% of the world’s population are classified as autocratic by the Varieties of Democracy Institute. Mapping the cartography of the global Right lies beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, Project 2025 serves as an illustration of how methodical the Right is in its planning, and how exacting it is in its execution. The successes of their plan is evident in not just political triumphs of populist-autocrats in numerous nations, it is also starkly visible in global operations like Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela, which represents a singularity, and not just because Trump declared himself the acting President of Venezuela on Truth Social. It marks the onset of a new Cold War, which like before, will be interspersed with smaller ‘hot-wars’ (borne out by President Trump’s threats to Mexico, Columbia, Greenland, Cuba and his plan to enhance The US’s military budget from $901 billion this year to $1.5 trillion next year.Greenland tooklitGiven the Greenland toolkit is bound to be applied elsewhere, it is worth dissecting it. After Ukraine, Greenland is the first ‘Western’ nation under threat of attack, and has sparked predictable condemnations from the West – condemnation that were sadly not extended unilaterally for Palestine and Venezuela. For President Trump, it is not enough to exercise the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement, which allows the US to reopen military bases in the region. He clearly wants to control Arctic shipping lanes and have unfettered access to potential oil, gas and mineral reserves, underscoring the re-hemisphering argument proposed by Project 2025. This is substantiated by the Pentagon shifting Greenland from the US European Command, responsible for Europe and Russia, to the Northern Command, responsible for North America. This was further deepened by the US circumscribing its own 2024 Arctic strategy that emphasised engagement with allies like including Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden to capitalise on the Arctic. Although Trump might eventually force an arrangement with Denmark on Greenland, on the same lines as US arrangements with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, the threat of invasion – politely called direct kinetic action – elsewhere is omnipresent given Trump has said that “national strength, rather than laws, treaties and conventions, should be the deciding factor as powers collide”. It is then no surprise that European nations have enhanced defence spending to €150 billion annually and are discussing deploying NATO forces in Greenland. Ironically, a World War II pamphlet from the US government to Army personnel in 1945 predicted this when it said, albeit about the Nazi Party, “they (fascists) make their own rules and change them when they choose….They maintain themselves in power by use of force combined with propaganda…The propaganda glorifies war and insists it is smart and ‘realistic’ to be pitiless and violent”.This might-is-right philosophy also partly explains the continued and escalating attacks on the liberal world order – including The US’s withdrawal from 66 international organisations and treaties – which essentially means it will halt voluntary funding and reduce US staff to these organisations. It is noteworthy that most of these relate to democracy, rule of law and climate change. Even the attack on the Federal Reserve System can be seen as an attack on multilateralism given the Fed is central to the global financial architecture. This signals a general disinterest in multilateralism and international rules, as substantiated by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who strongly “reject(ed) the outdated model of multilateralism that treats the American taxpayer as the world’s underwriter for a sprawling architecture of global governance”. Which brings us to Project 2025’s and the NSS’ larger geopolitical prescriptions, following which Trump is striving to ensure that the US has a primary sphere of influence (South America, Canada and the Atlantic). Even though Trump is extracting the US from other theatres, this only means re-prioritisation. Trump clearly aims to have bridgeheads to the rest of the world through partner-nations. This is why he pushed Europe to be more proactive against Russia, and is pushing Israel to ‘manage’ West Asia. Similarly, while Trump said, “he (President Xi) considers it (Taiwan) to be a part of China, and that’s up to him, what he’s going to be doing”, Trump has clearly nudged Japan to be more assertive in Asia. China in turn has already restricted rare earths and other dual-use materials to Japan, so that it cannot afford to be more proactive or support Taiwan, something Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has openly advocated for. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea – called the ‘CRINK’ coalition – and others like Turkey, who see themselves as civilisational powers, will in-turn be galvanised to either try to force their respective neighbours into a tributary order, stitch up alliances to counter the Donroe Doctrine and generally be more aggressive in diverse theatres. China has already hosted Irish, French and South Korean leaders, is stabilising its periphery, and trying to ease tensions with India. Reportedly it is also building six more aircraft carriers, bringing the total to nine. This will enable it to really project its power in the Indo-Pacific by 2035. Furthermore, both China (in 2018) and Russia (in 2020) have declared themselves as Near Arctic States. And finally, President Trump’s threats have forced European leaders to rethink security guarantees, something President Putin would be pleased about. Similarly, Russia’s deterrence guarantees to Venezuela worth $2 billion (including air defence systems) proved to be ineffective against The US’s cyber-kinetic warfare, coupled with fifth-generation airpower, which remotely took out Venezuela’s critical infrastructure. Naturally, nations purchasing Russian and Chinese equipment will have a hard rethink. This is going to unleash a new arms and cyber race, with competing nations (especially CRINK nations) scrambling to level up. China has already heavily invested in Volt Typhoon, a hacking group, specifically to attack critical infrastructure.Likewise, Operation Absolute Resolve raises troubling questions about the inviolability of intelligence services, which were completely compromised in Venezuela – as claimed by General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). If the US can so comprehensively penetrate the security apparatus of a nation-state and bypass the extensive support from ‘advisors’ and private contractors, it can potentially do so anywhere. It is no wonder that China is mitigating its political vulnerabilities by systematically excising “naked officials” from top leadership roles to neutralise any Western leverage. And finally, every threshold state (Iran, Taiwan, Sudan etc) would have internalised one key lesson – the only reliable way to secure their sovereignty is through nuclearisation. It is no coincidence that Russia’s Deputy Security Council Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said to RIA Novosti that “only a nuclear arsenal can provide maximum strengthening, guaranteeing that the country will be reliably protected! Long live nuclear weapons!” This will have a cascading effect, and the first liability will be the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Geo-economic consequences As argued elsewhere, Absolute Resolve secured resources and supply lines for the US, stymied China and Russia in Latin America, tried to re-establish a unipolar system led by Washington while trying to fracture the BRICS alliance. But it was also about so much more. Without undermining that the US’s actions in Venezuela were about actioning Project 2025’s thesis of reducing sovereign nations to resource vending machines – let’s leave aside the fact that Venezuelan oil will take a lot of resources and efforts to reach a position in which it can be used – Absolute Resolve had multiple geo-economic objectives which emanate from both Project 2025 and NSS 2025. Re-assert the petrodollar. Venezuela was already selling in non-dollar currencies, had shifted to China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) and had applied to join BRICS (which was also exploring currency alternatives). Whether the US would be willing to do this elsewhere is the key question given Saudi Arabia is also selling oil in Renminbi and Euros, may even join BRICS and is signing deals with Iran and China including for energy production which will prove crucial for AI data centres. In a similar vein, China is trying to destabilise the petrodollar system by internationalizing the Yuan and creating gold-backed corridors. In that sense, Absolute Resolve (even though it may have been aimed at forcing China to buy resources using dollars) may have the opposite effect. Not only would China continue buying resources in non-dollar currencies, but would also hasten stitching up alliances. If it felt extremely threatened, it may further restrict silver exports or weaponise US treasuries. China holds %688.7 billion of US treasuries as of October 2025, which is considerably lower than the USD 1.32 trillion it held in November 2023 but still significant enough to cause serious damage. Taking the lead in AIAbsolute Resolve (and the Donroe Doctrine) is also about taking a lead in Artificial Intelligence. While the US still has an edge on semiconductors, China is miles ahead when it comes to energy production (much of which comes from renewable energy sources).China has also invested heavily in energy infrastructure projects globally, which are complementary backups for a future geopolitical contestation. New data centres require over a gigawatt of electricity (enough for a tier-2 city) and it is estimated that these centres will boost electricity demand in the US by over 50% (touching 426 terawatt-hours) over the next five years alone. This gap isn’t dictating the Donroe doctrine, but is certainly a factor. This is partly because Big-Tech, which is at the forefront of AI, is hungry for new and faster energy sources that go beyond fossil fuels. Big-Tech is also why Greenland is on the US horizon, given the Paypal Mafia has been advocating for the establishment of crypto-empowered ‘network states’. Apart from limitless free thermal energy, the temperatures would make cooling data centres very economical. All of this emanates from Project 2025, which, among other things, also advocates for the replacement of diplomacy with coercive economic tools like sanctions and tariffs and reduced humanitarian aid. Questions for progressives in the USEvidently, not much can be expected from President Trump in ensuring that the US upholds the liberal world order, provides public goods and restrains its force. As Hannah Arendt famously put it, there is no end to imperialism, which is intertwined with expansionism. But what of the Democratic Party, and those in the Republican Party who do not agree with Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) philosophy? As they prepare for 2028, they need to understand that the world’s faith in the US as a benign power has been fundamentally shaken. As philosopher R.G. Collingwood said, the world fears that “the only clue to what man can do is what man has done”. If the Democratic Party – and their counterparts who have not completely surrendered to MAGA – seek to position themselves as responsible partners invested in a rules-based international order, they need to assure the world that when they come to power, they will go the extra mile to redress the conditions that led to the populist-autocrat upsurge, and eventually the Donroe Doctrine. Will they be a party with a difference or will they continue what Trump has exacerbated, albeit with a more diplomatic veneer?For example, will they commit to not invoke US domestic law as a defence for breaking international law, expressly prohibited under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? This one is especially crucial given over $8 trillion was torched in wars in the last 30 years that destroyed nations including Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and destabilised whole regions. The rules-based order cannot be a cloak to sanctify neocolonial violence against sovereign nations. Furthermore, will progressives in the US be willing to regulate Big-Tech, given social media is heavily monetised and weaponised in a manner which works against the liberal democratic order, and in favour of populist-autocrats? Similarly, will they be willing to reshape the neoliberal economic consensus and structural adjustments underpinning the global order, something that Global South economies feel very strongly about? Will they (and other Annex-1 nations) substantively invest and transfer technologies to Annex-2 nations who are on the front-lines of climate change? And finally, will they work to reform multilateral institutions that still don’t allow fair representation or voting rights to the Global South? Essentially, will progressives in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party do a hard rethink and recalibrate? Will they forge a new path along with the world’s progressives, and create a new, equitable world order? Questions for the progressive parties of the worldThis brings us to progressive parties of the world. 2026 has clearly triggered a systemic global repositioning. Although the Global South has almost unequivocally joined in the condemnation of the violation of the United Nations (UN) Charter, progressive leaders in Europe have inexplicably prevaricated on US kinetic action in Venezuela. Ironically, populist-autocrats like Marine Le Pen and Viktor Orbán have been more cautious or even adopted critical positions. Even if their positions are dictated by their ideological proclivities, it does show progressives as taciturn in defending the liberal international world-order. Maybe there are hidden variables that compel progressives in Europe, but to the rest of the world it seems like the coalition of the willing is unwittingly doing the unimaginable for the ungrateful.Therefore, the question progressives around the world have is what are progressive leaders, parties and governments doing? Will they be genuinely progressive, and uphold the rules based international order, or acquiesce to President Trump’s imperialism? This necessitates deep introspection and urgent recalibration on the part of progressives worldwide. If the tide of the Right is to be stemmed, we need to acknowledge that it is the progressive establishment’s standpattism that paved the way for the Right. It is no coincidence that, even though conflicts afflict five continents currently, there hasn’t been a substantive United Nations Peacekeeping operation since 2014. Likewise, the ruthless pursuit of national interests, including through sanctions and tariffs, predate the ascendancy of the Right. And similarly, the Global North has impeded Global South nations through neo-colonial practices – including capital accumulation, cheap labour, the colonisation of environments and trickle down economics – that fuelled glaring inequalities, and democratic regressions. It is these factors that contributed to the Right fashioning a neo-conservative world order – where nations have spheres of influence and might is right; are culturally pure (code for xenophobia, racism and casteism); and where the norms of the liberal world order are vilified as impediments to a mythical golden period.But what is stopping progressive parties from shedding their Macbeth-like fog of nostalgia, bureaucratic hesitation and technocratic chimeras? Progressives can and must organise themselves as effectively as the Right, in framing coordinated responses on global issues, creating opportunities for the sharing of best practices for each other and establishing new institutional arrangements that allow structured dialogues between evangelical accelerators from all nations. This means eschewing liberal echo-chambers, and forging new value-aligned partnerships with each other (especially between the Global-North and Global-South parties). It means collaborating much more actively, and deploying their foundations/think-tanks to create a progressive blueprint for the world. Ultimately, if progressives are to reclaim the centre, they must restore confidence in shared futures, accommodate rising powers without humiliation, and honour historical grievances without erasure. Progressive parties need to realise that it is just not their existence that is at question; it is the very soul of the world order. Pushparaj Deshpande is Samruddha Bharat Foundation’s Director & Editor of The Great Indian Manthan (Penguin).