Felix Olukayode
A dangerous pattern is reshaping the world order in 2026: the great powers — America, China, and Russia — are increasingly using smaller, weaker nations as bargaining chips in their geopolitical poker games, leaving millions of lives hanging in the balance while giants negotiate their own interests behind closed doors.
Nowhere is this more brazen than in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to a partial 30-day ceasefire with U.S. President Donald Trump — but shortly after the two men finished their call, Russia launched a fresh attack on Ukraine.
A nation of 40 million people, and its sovereign future, is being passed between two leaders on the phone like a memo, with Kyiv barely consulted. Trump described the ceasefire as possibly “the beginning of the end” of the long — but Ukraine knows too well that Moscow’s signature on paper has never yet meant peace on the ground.
In the Middle East, Iran has been the theatre for an even bloodier superpower proxy performance. On February 28, 2026, Israel and the United States launched airstrikes against Iran, killing its supreme leader and many other officials, and destroying large numbers of military and government targets. Iran retaliated by closing the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a global oil crisis. After more than five weeks of fighting, the conflict left thousands dead in Iran and Lebanon, dozens dead in Israel and Gulf Arab states, and millions displaced — including more than one-sixth of Lebanon’s entire population. Lebanon was never a principal party to the war. It simply had the misfortune of proximity.
The ceasefire that followed was itself a masterclass in great-power theatre. President Trump had declared that only Iran’s “unconditional surrender” would be acceptable, setting multiple deadlines — March 21, then March 23, then April 7 — for a deal. Eventually, it was Pakistan that arranged a conditional two-week ceasefire on April 8. A smaller nation, mediating between bigger ones, desperately trying to prevent a wider catastrophe — while Israel, per reports, continued operations in Lebanon even after the truce was announced.
- Now, Taiwan is watching its own fate being debated over trade tables and summit communiqués. Following his state visit to Beijing, Trump told reporters he and President Xi Jinping discussed Taiwan “in great detail,” but declined to directly answer whether the U.S. would defend Taiwan in the event of a conflict with China.
On a planned $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan, Trump said, “I may do it” — casting an ominous shadow of uncertainty over U.S. support for the self-governing island that China has committed to controlling.
CNN’s chief national security analyst called Trump’s failure to commit to the Taiwan arms sales “a win for China.”
The Beijing summit itself raised more questions than answers. While Washington touted wins on bilateral trade, Beijing warned the U.S. against overstepping on Taiwan and stated the U.S.-Israel war on Iran should never have started. Both sides released conflicting statements on what was actually agreed — and they overlapped only in limited areas. In other words, the two superpowers left the summit with different versions of reality — and Taiwan is left in the middle of their ambiguity.
The pattern is unmistakable and chilling: Ukraine, Iran, Lebanon, Taiwan — smaller states and peoples being used as leverage, pawns, and bargaining chips by powers who define world order on their own terms. History offers a grim warning for such arrangements: from the Munich Agreement of 1938 to the Yalta carve-up of 1945, deals made over the heads of smaller nations have a habit of ending in catastrophe. The world should pay close attention — because today’s ambiguity is tomorrow’s war.
Meanwhile, the United Nations watches from the sidelines, reduced to issuing warnings the world no longer seems to hear. As powerful nations strike self-serving deals, weaker states continue to pay the price.
History shows that when great powers gamble with smaller nations, the consequences are often catastrophic. Unless the world urgently reforms — or replaces — the paralysed institutions meant to prevent global chaos, humanity could be heading toward a far more dangerous future.