"Peace Council" on the Davos Stage: Trump's High-Stakes Gamble to Reshape the International Order

On January 22, 2026, in Davos, Switzerland, the crisp Alpine air seemed to freeze for a moment. At the annual World Economic Forum, U.S. President Donald Trump stood in the spotlight, signing a document that could rewrite the fundamental rules of the post-World War II international system—the Charter of the Peace Council. Below the stage, fewer than twenty heads of state and government leaders witnessed this moment. Among them were oil monarchs from the Middle East, populist leaders from South America, and a few political figures from Europe's periphery. The seats of America's traditional Western allies—Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada—remained empty.

This institution, referred to by some media as a parallel United Nations, has a birth process that is itself full of drama. From an initially envisioned temporary mechanism to resolve the Gaza conflict, it evolved into a permanent international organization aimed at ensuring stability and governance in conflict zones; from the moderate expression in Trump's words about possible cooperation with the United Nations, to the tough design in the draft charter granting its founder a lifelong chairmanship with the sole veto power. Within just a few months, a concept rapidly materialized at such a speed that it left the traditional diplomatic community stunned.

Davos, the venue where global elites discuss the future of the world economy, has now become the launchpad for a new geopolitical experiment. In his speech, Trump declared: the world today is wealthier, safer, and more peaceful than it was a year ago. The Peace Council in his hands is precisely the core framework of this new vision. However, the absence of allies in the audience, the skeptical gaze of the international community, and the caution from Chinese President Xi Jinping and Brazilian President Lula during their phone call—urging to stand on the right side of history—all suggest that this high-stakes gamble is far from reaching its conclusion.

A meticulously planned "non-traditional" diplomatic debut.

Analyzing Trump's entire itinerary at Davos reveals that the launch of the Peace Council is not an isolated event, but rather the climax of a coordinated strategy. Each move in this strategy precisely serves the same goal: to showcase to the world the return of a strong America and, centered around this, to redraw the international power map.

First, agenda-setting backed by strength. Before arriving in Davos, the Trump administration had just completed a world-shocking operation: on January 3, the U.S. military launched a surprise attack on Venezuelan military facilities. Special forces captured President Nicolás Maduro in the capital, Caracas, and transported him to New York for trial. This action was widely interpreted as a 21st-century upgrade of the Monroe Doctrine, sending a clear signal to the entire Western Hemisphere that the United States would not hesitate to use force to maintain its dominance. Immediately afterward, Trump issued an ultimatum on social media to Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel, warning him to reach an agreement before the U.S. took action, and deployed the navy to intercept oil tankers heading to Cuba. This series of actions set the tone of strongman politics for the Davos trip—peace initiatives do not stem from weakness but from undeniable military and economic superiority.

Secondly, leveraging economic leverage to drive political compromise. The Greenland dispute serves as another excellent case study. Trump publicly expressed his desire to purchase this Danish autonomous territory, even threatening to impose a 10% tariff on European countries opposing the move. At Davos, after meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, he announced that a great solution had been found and suspended the tariff threat. Although Danish and Greenland authorities quickly clarified that sovereignty issues were non-negotiable, Trump claimed via Fox News that he had secured full access rights to Greenland, with the agreement being permanent. The practical outcome of this episode was that European allies were forced to reassess their relationship with the United States in shock, while Trump successfully transformed a seemingly absurd proposal into a stage to showcase his deal-making skills and willpower. As German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated, European unity and determination proved effective, yet this precisely exposed Europe's passive position when facing unilateral pressure from the United States.

Finally, there is the stage exclusion of domestic political opponents. An intriguing detail is that Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California and a potential Democratic rival to Trump, had a scheduled fireside chat at the U.S. Pavilion in Davos abruptly canceled. Newsom's team accused the State Department of applying pressure, and he himself mocked on social media: How weak and pathetic must one be to fear a fireside chat so much? Regardless of the truth, the effect is clear: on the international stage of Davos, Trump ensured the spotlight remained solely on himself, isolating domestic political noise.

This combination of strength, transaction, and control paved the way for the Peace Council's debut. It sends a clear message to potential participants: this is a club dominated by the sole superpower of today. Joining means getting closer to the center of power, while refusal may lead to uncertain consequences.

The Structure and Power Logic of the "Peace Council": An Institutional Revolution?

Based on the disclosed information and the circumstances of the signing ceremony, the Peace Council is not merely a simple multilateral forum; its design reflects an ambition to subvert the operational logic of the existing international order.

The organizational structure bears a distinct Trump imprint. Its most core characteristic is the lifetime and personalization of leadership. According to a draft charter obtained by Reuters, Trump will serve as the permanent chairman of the council, even if he is no longer the President of the United States in the future. He holds the sole veto power and has the authority to choose which countries to invite to join, and even to dismiss members who displease him. This design completely deviates from the one-country-one-vote system based on the principle of sovereign equality in institutions like the United Nations, resembling more a global board of directors led by an American CEO. Founding member states are required to provide 1 billion dollars in funding within 12 months in exchange for permanent membership status, further directly linking economic strength with political influence.

The initial membership composition reflects the new geopolitical strategic focus. Observing the list of signatory countries clearly reveals the adjustment in U.S. diplomatic priorities:

Middle Eastern Countries at the Core: Key regional nations including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, and others are on the list. This confirms the Council's original intention to start from the Gaza peace process and also demonstrates the Trump administration's determination to make the Middle East the central region of its diplomatic legacy.
Absence of Traditional Western Allies: The United States' closest allies, including France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Norway, and Sweden, were all absent from the ceremony. The French Foreign Minister explicitly declined, citing concerns that the council might attempt to replace the United Nations; the British Foreign Secretary questioned the rationale of inviting Putin to discuss peace; and the Prime Minister of Slovenia argued that its mandate was overly broad and could undermine the international order based on the UN Charter. This rupture within the core alliance circle is a rare phenomenon since World War 2.
Non-Western and Swing Countries Become the Main Force: Argentina (Milei government), Paraguay, Hungary (Orbán government), Bulgaria, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and other countries constitute the main body of the founding members. Most of these countries have complex relations with the United States, possess special influence in their respective regions, or share ideological resonance with Trump in domestic politics. Their participation means that the Peace Council resembles more of an issue-based alliance founded on specific interests or temporary consensus, rather than a community of shared values.
Key Major Powers' Cautious Wait-and-See: Major powers such as China, Brazil, India, and Russia (although Trump claimed Putin has accepted the invitation, the Kremlin has only stated it is consulting with strategic partners) have not yet committed to joining. In a phone call with Brazilian President Lula, Chinese leader Xi Jinping explicitly called for upholding the central role of the United Nations and international fairness and justice, which is seen as a tactful rejection of parallel institutions.

Operational Model Emphasizes Results-Oriented Approach and Private Networks. This is evident from the planning of Gaza's reconstruction. In his speech, Trump presented renderings of transforming Gaza's coastal area into a skyscraper tourism complex, promising completion within three years. He envisions a management model where a group of Palestinian technocrats currently residing overseas would govern under the supervision of an executive committee of the council. This executive committee, besides Trump himself, would include U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.This governance approach, which bypasses existing Palestinian authorities (Fatah) and resistance groups (Hamas) and relies on overseas technical elites and Trump's private advisory circle, reflects his preference for direct, efficient, and controllable solutions, even if it means subverting traditional political processes.

Essentially, the Peace Council is an institutionalized attempt at Trump's transactional diplomacy and the America First ideology. It replaces slow multilateralism based on rules and consensus with flexible cooperation grounded in personal relationships and direct interests; it substitutes the ambiguous principle of sovereign equality with a clear pyramid power structure. As pointed out by Denilde Holzhacker, a professor of international relations at Brazil's ESPM University: In his view, direct actions by the United States—whether bilateral or unilateral—are what yield results... Whoever has the ability to exercise power should do so, regardless of the rules.

Ukraine Chess Game: The First Major Test for the Peace Council?

On the same day the Peace Council was launched, another piece of news emerged from Davos: Ukrainian President Zelensky announced that he and Trump had reached an agreement on U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine, with the relevant documents to be signed by the presidents of both countries before being submitted to their respective parliaments for approval. Zelensky even revealed that Ukraine, Russia, and the United States had agreed to negotiate an end to the war.

This is no coincidence. The war in Ukraine is the most challenging geopolitical crisis in the world today and a litmus test for the effectiveness of any new international security architecture. Trump is advancing the Ukraine issue in parallel with the launch of the Peace Council, with a clear intent: if a breakthrough can be achieved on the Ukraine issue, it will provide this new institution with undeniable legitimacy and prestige.

However, this path is fraught with thorns.

First, the positions of all parties remain far apart. Although Trump claims that both sides have reached a stage where an agreement can be made and warns that otherwise both sides would be foolish, the core differences have not been resolved. Russia's goal remains to control the entire Donbas region and ensure Ukraine's neutral status; Ukraine insists on restoring the 1991 borders and seeks security guarantees through NATO membership. The specific content of the U.S. security guarantees is unclear, but it is hard to imagine they would reach the level of NATO Article 5 (collective defense). Zelensky himself admits that it is difficult to envision Ukraine sharing a council with Russia and Belarus.

Secondly, the doubts among European allies run deep. Any solution to the Ukraine issue without thorough consultation with the European Union could trigger serious fractures within the Atlantic Alliance. European countries have paid a heavy price in supporting Ukraine, and they will never accept a U.S.-Russia deal that excludes them. German Foreign Minister John Vaderpool's comment hits the nail on the head: We already have a peace council, and that is the United Nations. The absence of Europe leaves the peace council without a crucial geopolitical foundation for addressing core European security issues.

Third, Russia's intentions are elusive. Putin expressed willingness to fund the Peace Council with Russian assets frozen by the West (approximately 1 billion dollars), but only if the United States assists in unfreezing them. This is both a gesture of cooperation and a bargaining chip. Whether Russia will genuinely cooperate with a U.S.-led peace process, or merely use it as a tool to divide the West and alleviate sanctions pressure, remains a significant question.

The Ukraine issue serves as a mirror, reflecting the structural contradictions faced by the Peace Council: it attempts to use American unipolar power to drive solutions for complex multilateral problems, yet lacks the comprehensive participation of key stakeholders (especially Europe); it pursues rapid results, but the roots of conflict run deep, involving fundamental issues such as territory, identity, and security architecture. The Trump administration may hope to accumulate credibility and momentum by achieving quick, visible results in places like Gaza (such as ceasefires, reconstruction project launches), which could then spill over into more challenging issues like Ukraine. However, whether this strategy can succeed remains far from certain.

A Divided World and an Uncertain Future

The birth of the Peace Council signifies that the international system may be sliding into a deeper period of division and restructuring. Its emergence is not accidental but the result of multiple trends acting together.

This is a concentrated eruption of American dissatisfaction with the existing multilateral system. Trump and his supporters have long criticized the United Nations as inefficient, bureaucratic, and exploited by hostile forces. The Peace Council offers an alternative: a more flexible, efficient, and U.S.-led institution. Its charter makes no mention of the UN Charter, which in itself carries strong symbolic significance.

This reflects the fragmentation and bloc formation of the global power structure. The cohesion of traditional Western alliances is declining, while emerging forces and multipolar trends are strengthening. The list of council members resembles a new map of world politics: the United States is at the center, surrounded by partners willing to accept its leadership or engage in interest exchanges, while the traditional Western core has receded to the periphery, and major powers like China and India maintain their distance. The world appears to be forming multiple, partially overlapping, and sometimes competing circles, rather than a unified global system.

This also signals the emergence of a new model of international intervention. From the Venezuela operation to the Gaza reconstruction plan, the Trump administration has demonstrated a tendency: a greater willingness to undertake unilateral or small-scale joint actions, relying on military superiority, economic leverage, and private diplomatic networks to pursue immediate results, rather than achieving broad consensus through lengthy multilateral negotiations. This model may be more efficient, but its legitimacy is weaker, and its sustainability is questionable.

The future landscape is fraught with uncertainty. One possibility is that, during Trump's term, the Peace Council, driven by strong U.S. advocacy and cooperation from some countries, makes progress on specific issues (such as Gaza reconstruction and mediation of local conflicts), becoming a selective multilateral institution that operates in parallel with the United Nations and is more action-oriented in certain areas. Another possibility is that, due to resistance from major powers and traditional allies, it gradually devolves into a small-scale, symbolic forum, unable to exert substantial influence on global major crises. The worst-case scenario is that it becomes a source of deepening divisions in the international community, eroding the existing international legal system and triggering conflicts between old and new institutions.

The snow in Davos will eventually melt, but the shockwaves triggered by the Peace Council have only just begun. It raises a fundamental question: in an era of shifting power, conflicting values, and a loosening traditional order, where is global governance headed? Should we repair the existing multilateral system or start anew? Should we uphold a rules-based order or accept arrangements based on power? Trump has offered a bold and controversial answer in his own way. Now, it is up to the rest of the world to make their choice. This high-stakes gamble to reshape the international order involves not just peace in Gaza or a ceasefire in Ukraine, but also how the world will address common challenges in the coming decades. The cards have been dealt, and the outcome remains uncertain.