Wrecking-ball politics & the fracturing of global security governance

Editor's note: Jessica Durdu, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a foreign affairs specialist and PhD candidate in international relations at China Foreign Affairs University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The Munich Security Report 2026,titled "Under Destruction," sets a stark and unsettling tone for the international security debate. By characterizing the current moment as "wrecking-ball politics," the report captures a deeper structural shift: the gradual replacement of reform-oriented governance with deliberate acts of institutional disruption.

What is at stake is not merely the erosion of individual rules or organizations, but the weakening of the shared belief that complex global challenges are best addressed through cooperative, rules-based mechanisms.

At the center of this transformation lies the visible retreat of the United States from its long-standing role as the principal architect and guarantor of the post-1945 international order. The report argues that the current U.S. administration has moved beyond selective disengagement toward an explicit rejection of constraints imposed by multilateral institutions, global trade rules and development frameworks. This shift has accelerated uncertainty across regions that had built their security and prosperity around a relatively predictable U.S. presence.

In Europe, the consequences are particularly pronounced. According to the report, regional conflicts, especially Russia-Ukraine conflict, have already dismantled the remnants of the post-Cold War cooperative security architecture.

Against this backdrop, wavering U.S. support for Ukraine and increasingly transactional rhetoric toward allies have heightened Europe's sense of strategic vulnerability. European responses – rising defense expenditures, flexible leadership coalitions and deeper security cooperation– reflect a growing recognition that the era of being a net security consumer is no longer sustainable. Yet the transition toward strategic autonomy remains incomplete, constrained by political fragmentation and uneven capacity across the continent.

A parallel, though distinct, dynamic is unfolding in the Asia-Pacific region. The report highlights concerns among regional actors regarding coercive practices and strategic pressure, particularly in sensitive areas such as maritime security and cross-Strait relations. At the same time, doubts about the consistency of U.S. commitments have encouraged hedging behavior rather than alignment.

Many countries in the region are simultaneously strengthening defense capabilities, deepening regional cooperation and maintaining pragmatic economic engagement with China. This reflects not indecision, but a rational response to an increasingly fluid balance of power and an absence of credible, inclusive security mechanisms comparable to those in Europe.

Beyond traditional security domains, the report underscores how wrecking-ball politics has spilled into global economic governance. Large-scale tariffs, export controls and the weaponization of supply-chain chokepoints have introduced volatility into global markets. While these measures are often justified domestically as tools to restore competitiveness or resilience, their cumulative effect has been to weaken trust in the predictability of the global trading system.

Notably, this erosion has not led to a wholesale rejection of multilateralism by most states. Instead, many middle-income and emerging economies have doubled down on regional trade agreements and issue-specific coalitions that preserve elements of rules-based exchange, albeit in more fragmented forms.

The Munich Security Index provides an important societal dimension to this analysis. Its finding – that citizens in emerging economies remain more optimistic about the future than their counterparts in advanced industrialized states– is not incidental.

In many Western societies, declining trust in democratic institutions, persistent inequality and perceptions of policy paralysis have fueled support for disruptive political agendas. By contrast, in parts of Asia, the Middle East and the Global South, optimism is often rooted in tangible development gains, expanding infrastructure, and greater strategic agency.

This divergence points to fundamentally different expectations of what security governance should deliver: stability and gradual improvement on the one hand, versus radical disruption as a corrective on the other.

Development cooperation and humanitarian assistance illustrate the human costs of this divergence. The sharp reduction in funding by traditional donors, particularly the United States, has pushed already strained systems toward crisis. As humanitarian agencies scale back operations, the impact is felt most acutely in low- and middle-income countries facing conflict, climate stress and food insecurity.  

While no single actor can fully compensate for these gaps, the situation has prompted renewed debates about efficiency, legitimacy and reform within multilateral institutions. It has also opened space for greater participation by emerging actors within the UN system, reflecting a broader redistribution of influence rather than a simple vacuum.

Taken together, the Munich Security Report 2026 paints a picture of a world caught between demolition and reconstruction. The appeal of wrecking-ball politics lies in its promise to break inertia and force change. Yet the report rightly questions whether destruction without credible alternatives can produce greater security or prosperity. Real-world experience suggests that transactional deals and unilateral coercion tend to favor the strong while increasing systemic risk for all.

The central challenge for the coming years, therefore, is not whether the old order can be restored, but whether a more resilient and inclusive framework can be built. This will require greater investment in regional capacities, renewed commitment to institutional reform rather than abandonment and a willingness to accommodate diverse development paths within shared rules.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)