One-line premise / Core claim:

“We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

Scope guardrail:

“This is not naïve multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions.”

Replacement frame:

“It’s building coalitions that work issue by issue with partners who share enough common ground to act together.”

Mechanism-first explanation:

“Great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.”

Definitional precision:

“You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.”

Concession + boundary:

“We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically.”

Anti-binary framing:

“The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls, or whether we can do something more ambitious.”

Multi-actor model:

“Different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests.”

Standard/threshold statement:

“Principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.”

Falsification/alternative:

“When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness.”

Concession line:

“This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.”

Bottom line:

“If we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”