Kissinger is not merely a historic, central figure of American diplomacy. His vision is now being implemented by the current administration. The first person Donald Trump met after his initial election as president in 2016 was Henry Kissinger. From that moment, the world began to change fundamentally.
By Xhelal Neziri
In the first year of his second term in the White House — the most eventful of his tenure at the helm of the United States — President Donald Trump appears to be validating Henry Kissinger’s famous remark that “it may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
Kissinger made that statement in 1968, during the final phase of the Vietnam War, when he was still a professor of international relations at Harvard University. The war ended with victory for the communist-backed North and the defeat of the U.S.-supported South. That same year, Republican Richard Nixon won the presidential election and entrusted foreign policy to Kissinger. From then until his death last year, Kissinger remained one of the most influential figures in U.S. foreign policy.
Armed with academic rigor and a precise scientific approach, Kissinger guided policy through the lens of realist theory in international relations. He was fully aware of America’s strength and its rivals’ weaknesses, and he approached foreign policy accordingly. Unlike liberal (or idealist) theory, realism holds that the strong do what they must, while the weak accept what they must. In this framework, national interests prevail, while values and principles are often sacrificed in pursuit of those interests.
World Orders Are Born After World Wars
Kissinger’s approach seemed at odds with the rules-based international order established after World War II. On October 24, 1945, in San Francisco, the Charter of the United Nations was adopted with the aim of preserving global peace after two devastating wars. The UN General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, International Court of Justice, and Secretariat were founded upon this document. Today, 193 states are members. The organization was envisioned as a kind of global government, tasked not only with preserving peace but also promoting friendly relations, human rights, international law, and state sovereignty.
A similar aspiration emerged after World War I. In the aftermath of destruction, famine, and millions of deaths, the League of Nations was established at the Paris Conference on January 10, 1920. It functioned for 26 years until the outbreak of World War II.
Both organizations sought to establish a world order based on rules, principles, and values — one that would be predictable and allow conflicts to be resolved diplomatically rather than militarily. The difficulty, however, is that such systems protect the weak and restrain the powerful. As Kissinger wrote in his 1994 book Diplomacy, “Empires have no interest in operating within an international system; they aspire to be the international system.”
Empires do not need a balance of power. The United States in the Americas and China in Asia have historically approached foreign policy in that manner.
Trump and the Return of Hard Realism
Trump is not the first U.S. president to challenge the rules-based order. American interventions in Latin America, North Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia have taken place throughout the UN era. Recent examples — Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria — illustrate how being America’s enemy can be dangerous, while friendship can prove costly.
Foreign policy dynamics have shifted with changes in administrations in Washington. But Trump appears more direct in his intentions. He stated openly that intervention in Venezuela was also motivated by its vast oil reserves — reportedly larger than those of Saudi Arabia and Russia. China had been strengthening ties with President Nicolás Maduro in pursuit of those resources before U.S. special forces arrested him in a dramatic operation earlier this year.
Trump seeks a new world order, much like Russia and China — both former empires — do. Russia wants a world no longer dominated by the United States, as it was after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. China envisions a form of global governance where powerful states coordinate decisions without interfering in one another’s spheres of influence.
Former empires — Germany, France, Turkey, Britain, Italy — are also repositioning themselves, some within the European Union, others as regional powers.
At the Davos forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for the creation of an alliance of so-called “third countries” — states that may not be superpowers but possess significant capacity, such as Canada, the EU, Latin American, and Asian nations. “Middle powers are not powerless,” Carney said, adding that they can help shape a new order grounded in human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
What Will the New Order Be Based On?
As wars around the world appear to be winding down and discussions of a “new world order” intensify, it feels as though the world has passed through a kind of Third World War — albeit not in the conventional sense. Since 1945, conflicts have often served as battlegrounds for major powers, particularly in Syria and Ukraine.
The League of Nations preserved peace for two decades; the United Nations for nearly eight. Which institution will safeguard global peace now?
Kissinger’s realist perspective suggests that in a jungle-like world, peace is better maintained through a balance of regional powers and clearly assigned hegemonic roles. In his 2013 book World Order, he predicted a multipolar world in which the United States would focus on national interests rather than exporting democracy and values.
In such a mosaic, major powers would coordinate among themselves without the participation of weaker states. In practice, realism — rooted in Thucydides — has dominated international relations for the past 150 years, regardless of how it has been formally described.
The Balkans and America’s “Flexible Realism”
Dismantling the current world order and building a new one does not imply diminished U.S. interest in the Balkans. On the contrary, involvement may become more visible and direct.
Trump’s first-term doctrine emphasized “principled realism”- applying pressure and sanctions before military intervention. His second-term approach appears to adopt what could be called “flexible realism,” prioritizing the end of wars and the “use of power for peace.” The common thread is the defense of American interests.
The region is not considered peripheral under the 2025 National Security Strategy. The Balkans are viewed as a key arena of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian influence – influence that Washington has pledged to counter.