President Donald Trump has proposed that Palestinians should be removed from the Gaza Strip, and the area should be turned into a “riviera” under American control.The United States also appears to have reversed its policy on the Russia-Ukraine war – and now seems to be working with the Kremlin to force a settlement in Kyiv. On Monday (February 24), the third anniversary of the war, the US opposed an attempt by its European allies at the UN to condemn Russia for its aggression.In both these theatres of ongoing conflict, America seems willing and keen to move forward without the parties that are the worst affected – Palestinians and Ukrainians – being represented.Trump’s detractors have argued that the “rules-based order” that the US and its Western allies have championed vis-à-vis China in the Indo-Pacific and Russia in Europe is now under threat from the US itself.What is the nature of this “threat”? What is driving the uncertainty and sense of crisis in global conversation today? Does the current moment represent a unique crisis in the Western-driven order?Is this a return to older imperialistic impulses?Benjamin Jensen, a senior fellow for the Futures Lab in the Defense and Security Department at the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), argued in a paper published last week that Trump aims to strike a “grand bargain” to reshape the world order and recreate the era of “spheres of influence”.In this understanding, empires or big powers in conflict tend to acknowledge, if only for a time, the broader hegemony of their rivals in particular areas that are often in geographical proximity. This impulse, repeatedly in evidence from the Hellenic world to modern times, has led to situations in which the rulers or people of countries with less economic and military power have had a very limited say in determining their own destinies.Story continues below this adThe roots of many contemporary conflicts lie in the depredations of colonialism. Consider:* At the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, European colonial powers carved up Africa among themselves, drawing straight lines on the map that ignored geographical and cultural realities on the ground. In the subcontinent, the Durand Line remains a source of conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan more than 130 years after it was established.* The Yalta Conference, which led to the firming of the UN system, the demilitarisation of Axis powers, and the setting up of the Cold War camps, was arguably the moment when the US formally became the security provider for the “West”.Explained | Why Trump’s dramatic reach-out to Putin could be as significant as the World War II Yalta SummitAt the February 1945 conference at the Black Sea resort town, the leaders of the US, the USSR, and the UK met to decide the future of Germany and Europe. The exclusion of French leader Charles de Gaulle is still seen as a slight by many in France.Story continues below this adSo does Trump’s approach towards the Palestinians and the Ukrainians signal a return to this imperialist mindset?Every act of US interventionism over the past seven decades – in Latin America, Asia, Middle East, or Afghanistan – has provoked cries of “American neo-imperialism”. This cry is now being heard as the US appears to move towards a more isolationist stance in Europe – even though there does seem to be less outrage, at least in the West, about the idea of occupying Palestine.While moral questions will be asked – and perhaps not answered – it might be more helpful to consider what the “grand bargain” strategy could portend.Some analysts have argued that the US bargain with Russia on Ukraine aims to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing. But the success of such a plan is far from guaranteed.Story continues below this adOpinion | Three years of the Ukraine-Russia conflict & lessons for IndiaAt the Munich Conference of 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed to the German occupation of Sudetenland, the German-speaking parts of the former Czechoslovakia, but that did not stop Hitler. And before that, the “grand bargain” among the European powers could not prevent World War I.Indeed, while Trump’s outreach to President Vladimir Putin may end the conflict in Ukraine early, a possible unintended consequence of the US action could be a reassessment by the middle powers of their approach towards China.Are domestic politics impacting the international relations of countries?It can be argued that a month in office and a few announcements, even if they have come from the President of the United States, are not enough to pronounce the end of the post-Cold War order. But there is another factor that may be more salient than Trump’s Ukraine gambit.Broadly, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, foreign policies of the western powers have been domestic politics-proof. In the UK, for example, until Brexit, both Labour and Tory governments were broadly predictable in the positions they took on the “big questions” of foreign policy.Story continues below this adEven in India, the broad direction of foreign policy – the growing closeness to the West, maintaining ties with Russia, and even neighbourhood policy – has not been upended by changes of guard in New Delhi.Trump’s election, though, is seen as a “great disruption” – it is for some an event that could potentially be as far-reaching as Mikhail Gorbachev’s term in the USSR. This appears remarkable because conventional wisdom sees democracies with strong institutions as being more stable and considered than one-party systems ruled by strongmen.Also Read | Endgame in Ukraine: How Trump will end the war Putin startedThe US and the UK aren’t the only countries where domestic politics has become more consequential than before for foreign policy. The rise of the far right across Europe – from the AfD’s dramatic success in Sunday’s German federal election to Marine Le Pen’s ambition of entering the Élysée Palace – threatens the idea of “Europe” as an economic and geopolitical unit.Indeed, changes in domestic politics in several countries are being driven by a new kind of internationalism, what strategic affairs analyst C Raja Mohan has called the “Con-intern” a nascent ideological formation akin to the Comintern or Communist International (founded in Moscow in 1919).Story continues below this ad“The argument in the West is only partly about America and Europe disputing policies on trade, tariffs, defence, and even territory… It is [also] about conservative forces from across national borders within the West coming together to challenge liberal orthodoxy on various issues… the ‘Con-intern’ is likely to leave an important policy legacy for the world on European security, global trade,” Raja Mohan wrote in his column in The Indian Express on February 20.So where does India stand in this changing world?The fact that political changes in some countries can now deeply impact foreign policy is a major reason for the foreseeable uncertainty in the world.New Delhi has been broadly successful in its “balancing act” in an increasingly polarised world. The “multi-alignment” strategy – India has ties with Russia, Europe, the US and Israel and Palestine – has helped protect its interests. That challenge could become more difficult if the US under Trump begins to see all ties through a zero-sum prism.That New Delhi is opening doors for a thaw with Beijing, and continues to engage with all the actors in Europe, is a positive sign. For the foreseeable future, it will likely continue its “wait and watch” strategy, while actively being a voice for peace. The latest signal came on Monday, when New Delhi abstained on UN votes on both back-to-back duelling resolutions, one of which was seen as being supportive of Russia and the other of Ukraine.