OPINION
By Missang Oyama
For much of the 20th century, world affairs were defined by ideological battles. The Cold War, though tense and palpable, was ultimately a period of predictable stability. The United States championed liberty and capitalism, while the Soviet Union pushed Marxist-Leninist doctrine. These rival systems clashed through ideological standoffs, high-stakes negotiations, aggressive diplomatic maneuvers, proxy debates, intelligence operations, and economic brinkmanship, but they adhered—however grudgingly—to certain rules of engagement. Both sides knew that mutual agreement was not a real possibility, and that knowledge should keep the worst outcomes at bay. The Cold War truly remained cold.
But in the 21st century, ideology has taken a back seat. The world now faces a far more dangerous trend—one driven not by ideas, but by raw imperial ambition. Three men have risen to power, each of them less interested in defending a way of life than in extending his personal dominion. Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping do not think in terms of alliances, institutions, or shared values. They are imperialists in the most primal sense: leaders who see the world as something to be carved up and controlled, rather than nurtured and protected.
This return to imperialism threatens to plunge the world into an era of conflict unseen since the 19th century, when the great powers fought for colonies, resources, and global dominance. That competition led directly to the First World War, and the cycle of imperialist aggression continued into the Second. Today, we are witnessing a similar moment in history—one where the desires of three men, rather than the balance of ideas, will dictate the fate of nations.
China is a new kid on the block. China’s rise in the 21st century has fundamentally altered the global balance of power. Once dismissed as a manufacturing hub for the West, China has leveraged its economic strength to become a technological and military giant. It has invested trillions in infrastructure projects across the world, tying developing nations to Beijing through debt diplomacy. It has built artificial islands in the South China Sea, expanded its navy at an unprecedented rate, and made it clear that Taiwan is next on its list of conquests. Unlike during the Cold War, when the United States stood as a counterweight to such ambitions, today’s White House occupant is less interested in ideological confrontations than in cutting deals that serve his personal brand of power.
Donald Trump’s second term presidency marks a seismic shift in America’s global posture. Traditionally, the United States had positioned itself as the defender of smaller nations, the enforcer of a rules-based order, and the guardian of democracy. But Trump sees international affairs differently. He admires strongmen, ridicules alliances, and has little patience for the constraints of diplomacy. His foreign policy is clearly transactional—less about principles than about personal gain. That makes him an ideal partner for men like Putin and Xi, who view the world in similarly self-serving terms.
Trump’s admiration for imperialism is not subtle or hidden. Unlike previous American presidents, who invoked the Founding Fathers’ creed, his favorite predecessor is William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States. This is no accident of thought. Trump does not savor those great guys at Mount Rushmore – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. These four US presidents are depicted in 60-foot tall sculptures at Mount Rushmore, fondly known as “America’s Shrine of Democracy.” These presidents represent America’s birth, growth, development, and preservation.
McKinley was a man who saw expansion as a necessity, annexing Hawaii and seizing Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. His use of tariffs and trade barriers mirrored Trump’s own economic nationalism. More importantly, McKinley was an imperialist, a man who believed that the United States had the right to dictate terms to smaller nations. That philosophy—once discredited—has found new life in Trump’s worldview.
Putin, meanwhile, has long embraced the idea that Russia’s power should be restored through territorial expansion. His annexation of Crimea in 2014 was only the beginning. His war in Ukraine is a continuation of the same impulse: to redraw borders, to reclaim lost influence, and to send a message that Russia will not be constrained by international law. He sees Eastern Europe as Russia’s rightful sphere of influence, and he has systematically worked to destabilize NATO, encourage far-right movements in Europe, and reassert Moscow’s control over its former satellites.
Xi’s ambitions mirror Putin’s, but on an even larger scale. His vision of Chinese dominance extends beyond territorial expansion—it is economic, technological, and political. China has spent years building alternative financial systems, strengthening its military, and extending its reach through projects like the Belt and Road Initiative. It seeks to become the preeminent power in Asia and, eventually, the world. Like Putin, Xi sees the post-World War II order as something to be dismantled and replaced with a structure more favorable to his rule.
What makes this moment so perilous is that all three men share a common understanding: the world is up for grabs. Unlike during the Cold War, when America and the Soviet Union maintained a global equilibrium, there is no ideological counterweight to their ambitions. Instead, there is an implicit agreement—an unspoken pact among these imperialists. Putin wants Eastern Europe. Xi wants Taiwan and dominance in Asia. And Trump, is more interested in negotiating spheres of influence than in standing against their ambitions.
In his current presidency, Trump has repeatedly signaled that he has little interest in defending America’s traditional allies. He has withdrawn the US from UNHRC, and mused the takeover of Greenland from Denmark with the desire to annex Canada because of its resources as the 51th state of the US and acquire Panama because of its Canal as if the world were still operating under 19th-century colonial rules. His approach to global affairs is that of a businessman at a negotiating table, rather than a statesman defending principles and ethics. Trump’s recent remarks when the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House was appalling. He said the US will takeover Gaza Strip.
This disposition suits Putin and Xi just fine. A United States that withdraws from its role as global leader is exactly what they desire. It clears the way for their own expansions, leaving smaller nations vulnerable to coercion, annexation, and subjugation.
The consequences of this shift are already visible. Putin’s war in Ukraine has been a brutal test case for how far imperialism can go before the world reacts. The response has been mixed—Western sanctions have been severe, but Russia continues its aggression because he visualizes a relapse of these sanctions anytime soon. Already, Germany is subtly leaning towards Russia with the call for the reopening of the NORD Stream Pipeline for cheaper gas from Moscow and the French economy almost on its knees. Meanwhile, China watches and learns, gauging whether the world will truly stand in its way when it moves against Taiwan.
In Africa, China’s ambitions are evident in its economic neo-colonialism. Beijing’s influence on the continent has grown exponentially, with Chinese firms controlling critical infrastructure, resources, and industries. While the West once prided itself on fighting colonialism, today’s world powers are more interested in ensuring their own dominance.
The last time the world saw this level of imperial ambition unchecked, it led to disaster. The scramble for colonies in the 19th century culminated in the First World War. The unchecked ambitions of Nazi Germany in the 20th century with Adolf Hitler at the helm led to the Second. Imperialism is never benign—it is a force that thrives on expansion, on dominance, and ultimately, on conflict.
The warning from history is clear. The world cannot afford to let imperialists dictate the future. If left unchecked, the ambitions of Trump, Putin, and Xi will inevitably lead to conflicts that make the Cold War seem like a golden age of stability.
The Democrats of 1900 in the United States had it right when they enthused that, “Imperialism abroad will lead to despotism at home.” Today, that truth is more relevant than ever. If the world does not push back against the new imperial order, it will soon find itself at the mercy of three men who care nothing for liberty, democracy, or the sovereignty of nations. The choices made now will determine whether this century belongs to the forces of freedom—or to the ambitions of emperors who sit atop at three opulent locations: Washington DC, Moscow, and Beijing.
Oyama is a Public Affairs Analyst. He writes from Abuja, Nigeria.
