In his dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell depicted a world where truth was malleable, information was weaponised and citizens lived under the shadow of relentless ideological struggle. In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, echoes of Orwellian concerns - fragmentation, mistrust and narrative control - are increasingly visible. Recent tensions between the United States and its European partners, shifts in global alliances, and fractures in economic and strategic consensus reflect long-standing pressures on the post-World War II international order. While these developments do not constitute a literal fulfilment of Orwell’s fiction, they do reveal patterns that resonate with his warnings about centralised power and factional division.
Orwell’s world and the new geopolitics
Orwell’s novel was less a prediction of precise future events than a warning about the dangers of unchecked power and ideological conformity. The hallmarks of his imagined society, including surveillance, opaque governance and the breakdown of common ground, now find metaphorical parallels in the geopolitical sphere. Modern states, including once great champions of democracy, compete fiercely over narrative control and economic leverage. At the same time, global consensus on shared rules has weakened, giving rise to a far more fragmented world order.
A central pillar of post-war stability has been the transatlantic alliance between the United States and Europe. For decades, this partnership anchored global security, economic integration and regional diplomatic cooperation. Recently, however, strands of disagreement have emerged over trade, defence and the prioritisation of one nation’s interests above all others.
This has strained the US-Europe relationship to a degree not seen in many years.
Trade and tariffs
One of the clearest flashpoints in recent transatlantic relations has been the intensification of trade disputes and tariffs. US leadership under President Donald Trump has threatened or implemented tariffs against several European countries following disagreements over his stated desire to take control of Greenland, as well as broader trade policy.
These policies, typically framed by US leaders as necessary for national security and competitiveness, have generated unprecedented European backlash. A number of nations have moved troops to Greenland in support of Denmark’s claim over the North Atlantic landmass, while critics and political leaders within Europe have described these moves as coercive and damaging to the long-standing “rules-based” trading system. As a joint statement from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland warned, such measures risk pushing the alliance into a “dangerous downward spiral”.
From an Orwellian perspective, this situation recalls the manipulation of “truth” through economic levers: tariffs become diplomatic weapons, and trade agreements are reframed not as mutual bargains but as instruments of domination.
Another dimension of this geopolitical shift is the redefinition of strategic narratives. Recent US strategic documents reportedly characterise Europe not merely as an ally but as a partner whose long-term reliability and cultural identity are subject to debate. According to analysis of the latest US National Security Strategy, parts of Europe have been described in terms that extend beyond policy disagreement to touch on questions of cultural and civilisational vitality.
Such rhetoric, which frames allies in ways that may fuel internal doubt or external critique, mirrors Orwell’s notion of “doublethink”, where language is used both to persuade and to destabilise. When diplomacy is inflected with civilisational judgement, the shared foundations of cooperation risk erosion. In turn, this leaves room for strategic fragmentation rather than integration.
Global economic splits
These tensions between the United States and Europe are unfolding against a broader backdrop of global economic fragmentation. Institutions and frameworks that have governed international finance and trade for decades are under pressure from rising geopolitical strains, driven in large part by the actions of a single political figure.
This fragmentation manifests itself most clearly in the emergence of new economic blocs, including those that prioritise strategic self-interest over open cooperation. Prominent examples include BRICS+, China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
Lesser-known groupings on the global stage include the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a post-US TPP bloc. All are Asia-centric.
As states seek to safeguard their own economic security, long-established norms of trade and investment are being reconfigured, in some cases giving rise to competing spheres of influence rather than integrated markets. These trends resonate with Orwell’s portrayal of a world in which ideological blocs exist in perpetual tension, each constructing its own narrative of legitimacy.
Europe’s response to these external pressures is also shaped by internal political dynamics, though to a far lesser extent than those seen in Asia. Fragmented governments, resurgent nationalist sentiment and differing visions of strategic autonomy have complicated the European Union’s ability to present a unified front against global fragmentation efforts led by President Donald Trump.
These internal differences weaken collective action and amplify external pressures. Europe is increasingly at risk of becoming an also-ran on the global stage.
In 1984, the manipulation of internal divisions was a key tool for maintaining control. In today’s geopolitical environment, a comparable dynamic is emerging - sometimes facilitated by European leaders acting in alignment with US priorities, perhaps without a full appreciation of the long-term consequences.
Yet unlike Orwell’s fictional world, where division was orchestrated by a single authority, modern geopolitical fractures arise from economic disparity, political flux and competing national priorities. When such divisions emerge, they can be exploited by external actors, undermining confidence in cooperative institutions and accelerating fragmentation.
As a result, some observers now characterise current dynamics as a new kind of Cold War - not between two superpowers alone, but among multiple, evolving blocs with shifting allegiances. In this environment, alliances are less stable and increasingly transactional, with traditional partners finding themselves in tension over overlapping interests.
What Orwell warned against was not specific political alignments, but the erosion of shared objective reality and the ascendancy of competing narratives. In that sense, contemporary geopolitics underscores his caution. As nations prioritise strategic self-interest and redefine allies as competitors, the shared structures that once underpinned international cooperation risk becoming casualties of the very forces they were designed to restrain.
To suggest that 1984 has come true would be an oversimplification. Today’s geopolitical landscape is one of shifting alliances and economic contestation, reflecting elements of Orwell’s enduring themes rather than his precise vision. Nonetheless, recent tensions between the United States and Europe, disputes over tariffs, evolving strategic narratives and the fragmentation of global economic structures serve as a reminder that the challenges of shared truth and collective action remain as relevant in the 21st century as they were in Orwell’s imagination.
No comments:
Post a Comment