Finnish President Alexander Stubb recently gave an honorary doctorate speech at the University of Vaasa, where he discussed the emerging world order and presented his vision of global power relations. This is an AI-supported analysis of his statements with different perspectives from European, American, Chinese and Indian sources.

Main thesis: A world in transition

In his speech at the University of Vaasa on 29 April 2025, President Stubb described a world order in dramatic change. His analysis was largely based on ideas from his forthcoming book “The Triangle of Power: Rebalancing the New World Order"5According to him, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 marked a decisive turning point that effectively ended the previous world order.5.

Stubb emphasized that we are in a historically significant upheaval comparable to 1918, 1945 or 1989, and predicted that “the reshaping of the new world order will take somewhere between five and ten years.”5He encouraged the audience to remain calm and analytical during this period of disorder.

Yalta vs. Helsinki: Two Models of World Order

A central part of Stubbs' lecture was the comparison between two historical models of global order:

  1. The Yalta Model (80 years ago): At the Yalta Conference in 1945, three great powers (the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union) met to divide the world into spheres of interest. This model represents a world organized through great power politics without regard for the interests of smaller nations6.
  2. The Helsinki model (50 years ago): In contrast, the 1975 Helsinki Accords, a negotiated document signed by all parties, including the Soviet Union, established common rules and norms for coexistence in Europe6.

The comparison between these models is particularly relevant today. According to the Wilson Center, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently highlighted the 80th anniversary of the Yalta Conference and praised the “Yalta-Potsdam order” that has provided “the normative-legal framework of the international system for eighty years.”6This signals a clear preference on Russia's part for a return to great power politics based on spheres of interest.

The Global South as a Wave Master

Stubbs's most controversial thesis was that the global South will determine the future world order:

“My big thesis is that the one who will determine the next world order is actually the global South. It will determine whether we lean towards multipolarity, driven by the global East, or multilateralism, driven by the global West.”5

He identified several “key states” in this regard, including India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.2Stubb argued that the West needs to develop “a whole new form of dialogue and cooperation with the global South”5 to influence development.

Three possible future scenarios

President Stubb outlined three possible future scenarios for the world order:

  1. An à la carte world: A world without common values ​​where each state only looks after its own interests in a very Machiavellian spirit5.
  2. Increased regional integration: A world where cooperation primarily occurs within regional blocs rather than globally5.
  3. A global agreement: A new set of rules and norms within existing institutions – the alternative Stubb himself advocates5.

European perspectives

European voices, such as Nathalie Tocci (Italy), warn that the liberal international order is under serious threat. She argues that the EU must “wake up to the changing reality” and develop a coherent strategy to defend EU interests and preserve multilateral institutions.16.

President Stubb emphasized in a speech earlier this year that “we live in times of turmoil, with wars in Europe and the Middle East and a new administration in the United States that is redefining our transatlantic relationship.”18, which underlines European concerns about regional security.

American perspectives

American analysts such as Robert Blackwill and Thomas Wright at the Council on Foreign Relations speak of the “end of the world order” and describe this time as “a moment of radical international uncertainty” that coincides with “the withdrawal of the United States from global leadership.”12.

Richard Haass, also from the Council on Foreign Relations, points out that “the experience of previous transition periods suggests that any attempt to reform or create a new global order must be collaborative.”16, which supports Stubb's emphasis on multilateralism.

Chinese perspectives

Chinese sources see a world order in transition but stress the value of stability. Qingguo Jia of China believes that the post-war order is in “serious trouble” but not necessarily on the verge of disappearing. He believes that military conflict between the great powers, especially the US and China, remains unlikely given the common interest in avoiding such a catastrophe.16.

China's own vision of international order, according to the China Institute of International Studies, is based on "four pillars" with multilateralism as the ideological foundation, the UN Charter as the legal foundation, the UN as the core of the international system, and respect for civilizational diversity.8.

Indian perspectives

From an Indian perspective, the current transitional period is often seen as complex with elements of both unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity existing side by side.

Indian leaders often see their own country as “a representative and leader” of the Global South, as well as a “bridge” connecting the Global South with the Global North.9. According to some Indian sources, “India is on the verge of playing a crucial role in the emerging new world order”7.

 

There are several aspects of Stubbs's presentation that can be expected to come under discussion:

  1. Historical determinism? Stubb's comparison with previous historical turning points (1918, 1945, 1989) suggests a certain determinism. But history rarely follows such clear patterns. Francis Fukuyama's famous thesis of the "end of history" after the Cold War proved to be premature.10, and so can today's predictions.
  2. Overestimation of the significance of the Ukraine war? While Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a significant event, Stubb may overestimate its significance as a system-changing event. Many analysts point to several factors contributing to the shift in the world order, including 9/11, the 2008 financial crisis, the rise of populism, Brexit, and the rise of China.516.
  3. The unity of the global South? Stubb speaks of the global South as a cohesive force, but in reality these countries are very heterogeneous with different interests and approaches to international order. Countries like India, Brazil and South Africa often have very different geopolitical interests.
  4. Underemphasis on economic factors? Stubbs' geopolitical focus may underestimate important economic forces shaping world order, including trade wars, technological competition, and the economic consequences of climate change.
  5. Finland's specific position? Stubbs' vision may be colored by Finland's specific geopolitical situation – a small country with a 1300-kilometer border with Russia and a history of conflict3This perspective cannot necessarily be generalized to other parts of the world.

Final words

President Stubbs' speech represents an important European perspective on the ongoing transformation of the global order. His emphasis on multilateralism, cooperation and engagement with the global South reflects a broader European vision, but is challenged by alternative perspectives from the US, China and India.

The world is undoubtedly in a period of transition, but how this transition will unfold and what order will replace the current one remains an open question. However, Stubb's call for calm analysis and international cooperation is relevant regardless of the final outcome.