Putin, Kim, and Xi: Sky News Outlines Options for a New World Order

Sky News military analyst Michael Clarke has laid out three possible paths for the world order going forward, arguing that the rise in Russian aggression—and its recent intensification—reflects growing confidence that the West is uncertain about how to respond.

Michael Clark reported that there are currently at least three options for the development of the world order in the future. One of them involves the influence of China, Russia, and also North Korea.

Future Scenarios in Geopolitics

According to Clarke, we are seeing three broad future scenarios:

1. A world dominated by expansionist dictatorships—where states like Russia, China, and possibly North Korea redefine international norms by force.
2. A fragmented multipolar world, where power is more diffuse and chaos and competition dominate interstate relations.
3. A revival or preservation of liberal democracies, where democratic values and cooperation regain strength, countering authoritarian expansion.

Clarke indicates that the second scenario—multipolarity—is currently the most likely, given the actions of Russia and its partners, combined with inconsistent Western responses. (Sky News—”Why fears of a Russian attack on Europe…” Sky News)

Evidence of Escalation and Western Hesitation

Clarke points to recent large-scale Russian drone and missile strikes—including the major assault on September 7, 2025—as evidence that Moscow believes it can act with less risk of meaningful retaliation. Kyiv reported that many of these drones and missiles overwhelmed air defenses, causing casualties and damage in the capital.

At the same time, Clarke observes that many Western countries are vague about what “security guarantees” for Ukraine mean in practice. Some talk about deployment, others about financial or logistical support. Few commit to sending troops or more forceful intervention inside Ukraine. This ambiguity, Clarke argues, feeds into Russian risk-taking.

America’s Changing Role

Part of Clarke’s argument concerns the United States. He suggests that under its current leadership, the U.S. is retreating from its role as a guarantor of liberal order—not necessarily in word, but in deed.

Trump’s public statements have often focused on symbolic or rhetorical opposition to Russia but fall short of firm military commitment. This gap between rhetoric and action only reinforces the perception in Moscow that the West lacks resolve.

What Remains Unclear

Clarke warns that this moment could define whether liberal democratic norms survive this century or give way to a world shaped by authoritarian power and coercion. But many details remain vague: how large any Western force would be, when it would deploy (if ever), under what legal framework, and how quickly these decisions could be made.

There is also uncertainty about how much influence Kim Jong-un has in this postulated group of “dictatorial” powers, a claim Clarke touches on but which lacks published evidence in principle for formal cooperation beyond symbolic statements.

Putin’s recent escalation isn’t just about battlefield calculations—it is political. This move is aimed at exploring the limits of what the West is willing and unable to do. Clarke suggests that Moscow may perceive the West’s continued stalling, avoidance of firm commitments, or mixed messages as permission to escalate its attacks.

Trump suspects a conspiracy

On September 3, representatives from 26 countries participated in a military parade in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The event was dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the victory over Japan in World War II.

Later, US President Donald Trump wished the Chinese people a “wonderful and unforgettable holiday” and asked to convey “warmest greetings” to Putin and Kim as they “plot” against America.

The Kremlin later rejected Washington’s accusations. Yuri Ushakov, an aide to the Russian leader, said the three leaders in Beijing weren’t conspiring or talking about it.